andrew.w.kaylor added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/IR/IRBuilder.h:262
Function *F = BB->getParent();
- if (!F->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::StrictFP)) {
+ if (F && !F->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::StrictFP)) {
F->addFnAttr(Attribute::StrictFP);
----------------
kpn wrote:
> rjmccall wrote:
> > kpn wrote:
> > > This looks reasonable to me.
> > >
> > > It smells like there's a larger strictfp IRBuilder issue, but that's not
> > > an issue for this patch here. The larger issue won't be hit since the new
> > > options affect the entire compilation. It therefore shouldn't block this
> > > patch.
> > Does IRBuilder actually support inserting into an unparented basic block?
> > I feel like this is exposing a much more serious mis-use of IRBuilder.
> I suspect you are correct. If we let this "F && " change go in we'll have a
> situation where whether or not a block is currently in a function when a
> function call is emitted will affect whether or not the eventual function
> definition gets the strictfp attribute. That seems like an unfortunate
> inconsistency.
>
> I'm still looking into it. I hope to have an IRBuilder review up today or
> tomorrow.
As I just commented on the related patch @kpn posted, it appears that IRBuilder
doesn't entirely support inserting into an unparented block. I was surprised by
this, but there are places that need to be able to get to the Module from the
BasicBlock. So, I think something problematic may be happening in the failing
case.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62731/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62731
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
