ahatanak added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27680#628272, @rjmccall wrote:
> Wouldn't it be simpler to just record an insertion point for the beginning of
> the current lexical scope and insert the lifetime.begin there instead of at
> the current IP?
I'm not sure I understood your comment, but it seems to me that simply moving
the lifetime.start intrinsics to the current lexical scope wouldn't work in a
case like this:
{ // This is the previous lexical scope.
label1:
...
int a; // We want to move the lifetime.start for "a" to the beginning of
this scope (not the current lexical scope), since goto is not leaving its scope.
...
{ // This is the current lexical scope.
int b; // We don't want to move the lifetime.start for "b", since goto is
leaving its scope.
goto label1;
}
}
Currently, the lifetime.start is inserted at the beginning of the basic block
of the lexical scope holding the goto's destination.
Let me know if I misunderstood your comment or you've found a flaw in this
approach.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27680
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
