Quuxplusone added inline comments. ================ Comment at: test/CodeGen/no-devirt.cpp:16 @@ +15,3 @@ + if (a > 6) return data[a] ; // Should not devirtualize + if (a > 4) return data.func1(a); // Should devirtualize + return data.func2(a); // Should devirtualize ---------------- Sunil_Srivastava wrote: > Quuxplusone wrote: > > This is a really dumb question from the peanut gallery, but, could you > > explain why these two cases (lines 15 and 16) should differ? It really > > seems like both calls should be able to be devirtualized, because the > > compiler statically knows what they should call. > > > > I think you mention the difference between lines 15 and 16 here: > > > > > except, for some reason, when it is an operator and used with an operator > > > syntax > > > > but you don't explain *why* the difference is desirable. Shouldn't we just > > fix that difference, then? > > > > Is your first fix ( > > > > > The first fix will be in the front end to force the instantiation on > > > virtual calls that are potentially devirtualizable. > > > > ) basically "fix the difference between lines 15 and 16", or is it talking > > about something else entirely? > AFAICS, The two cases (line 15 and 16) should not differ. > > The first fix will "fix the difference between line 15 and 16". I have the > change for that ready, but once we do that, there will be no way (known to > me) of testing the second "fix". Hence the second "fix" is being proposed for > commit before the first. Okay, makes sense to me now. (As long as the comment on line 15 gets updated in the "first fix". I believe you'll be touching this test case again anyway in the "first fix", because the expected output will change.) Question answered. :)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22057 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
