================
@@ -5678,11 +5678,10 @@ bool Compiler<Emitter>::visitReturnStmt(const
ReturnStmt *RS) {
return this->emitRet(*ReturnType, RS);
}
- if (RE->getType()->isVoidType()) {
- if (!this->visit(RE))
+ if (RE->containsErrors() || RE->getType()->isVoidType()) {
+ if (!this->discard(RE))
return false;
} else {
- InitLinkScope<Emitter> ILS(this, InitLink::RVO());
// RVO - construct the value in the return location.
----------------
Serosh-commits wrote:
@tbaederr
on the containsErrors() placement = I originally hoisted it just to catch bad
code early/everywhere, but you're totally right it really only matters for
blocking the RVO path where things could go wrong. I'll move it down into the
else block so it's only checked before visit/RVO .
On discard() = I swapped visit() for discard() just to be safe about stack
hygiene. I was worried visit() might leave a value hanging on the stack (like
in the ternary case where a void function returns a non-void expr), whereas
discard() explicitly evaluates side effects but guarantees a clean pop. That
felt safer given the original RVOPtr assertion was stack-related. But if
visit() + a manual pop (or whatever the usual pattern is) is preferred for
consistency then i am happy to change it back
On InitLinkScope = basically just skipped it for void functions because they
don't do RVO at all, so setting up that scope felt redundant (and was what
emitted the bad opcodes leading to the crash in the first place). Non-void
cases keep it unchanged.
please need ur help on that i haven't pushed anything yet wanted to run this
reasoning by you first. Does this make sense, or do you want me to adjust any
of these before I update (revert discard, different guard for the scope) i will
be happy to do that
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/176550
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
