rsmith added a comment. In D82314#2109728 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82314#2109728>, @lxfind wrote:
> @rsmith Thanks. That's a good point. Do you know if there already exists > optimization passes in LLVM that attempts to shrink the range of lifetime > intrinsics? If so, I am curious why that does not help in this case. Or is it > generally unsafe to move the lifetime intrinsics, and we could only do it > here with specific context knowledge about coroutines. I don't know for sure, but I would expect someone to have implemented such a pass already. Moving a lifetime start intrinsic later, past instructions that can't possibly reference the object in question, seems like it should always be safe and (presumably) should always be a good thing to do, and similarly for moving lifetime end markers earlier. It could be that such a pass exists but it is run too late in the pass pipeline, so the coroutine split pass doesn't get to take advantage of it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82314/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82314 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
