================ @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -gkey-instructions -gno-column-info -x c++ %s -debug-info-kind=line-tables-only -emit-llvm -o - \ +// RUN: | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes=CHECK,CHECK-CXX + +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -gkey-instructions -gno-column-info -x c %s -debug-info-kind=line-tables-only -emit-llvm -o - \ +// RUN: | FileCheck %s + +// Check the stores to `retval` allocas and branches to `return` block are in +// the same atom group. They are both rank 1, which could in theory introduce +// an extra step in some optimized code. This low risk currently feels an +// acceptable for keeping the code a bit simpler (as opposed to adding +// scaffolding to make the store rank 2). + +// Also check that in the case of a single return (no control flow) the +// return instruction inherits the atom group of the branch to the return +// block when the blocks get folded togather. ---------------- OCHyams wrote:
Yep in Clang - here https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/2e70da3fba14f9ff0b29f65fed174f075d94d9a4/clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp#L336 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134652 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
