yaxunl marked 20 inline comments as done. yaxunl added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGCall.h:248 + return HasLV ? LV.getAddress() : RV.getAggregateAddress(); + } + ---------------- rjmccall wrote: > Part of my thinking in suggesting this representation change was that the > current representation was prone to a certain kind of bug where clients > blindly use the RValue without realizing that it's actually something they > need to copy from instead of using directly. That is generally a bug because > indirect arguments are expected to be independent slots and are not permitted > to alias. The new representation implicitly fixes these bugs by pushing users > towards using one of these approaches. > > All of this is to say that I'm not thrilled about having a > getAggregateAddress here. I see. I will remove getAggregateAddress. https://reviews.llvm.org/D34367 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
