================ @@ -37,9 +37,11 @@ cond.end: ; preds = %entry, %cond.true ; CHECK: testq ; CHECK: je ; CHECK: callq alloc +; CHECK-NEXT: nop ---------------- sivadeilra wrote:
I went further with more precise optimization around NOP insertion. We should only be inserting NOPs when a function has an EH personality function (and thus has IP2State tables). No IP2State table mean no need to insert NOPs at all, even for SEH, right? The `WinException::beginFunction` computes `shouldEmitPersonality`, so I used that value to control whether we do any NOP insertion. Some tests now fail due to differences. I noticed in `llvm\test\CodeGen\X86\win64_call_epi.ll` that `foo1` looks correct (and still passes), but `foo2` appears to be incorrect. `foo2` does not have an EH personality function, but it checks that ` nop` is inserted after `callq`. After my changes (for using `shouldEmitPersonality`), the test for `foo2` fails. What's the right thing to do here? Should `foo2` be using `personality ptr @personality` and should its `call` be upgraded to `invoke`, or should `foo2` not expect to find a `nop`? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144745 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
