https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49171
Sanjay Patel <[email protected]> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|CONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from Sanjay Patel <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to Nikita Popov from comment #8)
> @spatel Your patch with a limit of 15 looks fine to me. I don't think we
> need to do further experiments, as this is a question of worst-case
> complexity rather than average-case performance.
Thanks! Committed the quick fix here - https://reviews.llvm.org/rG378941f611ab
I think that's enough to say this bug is fixed, but reopen if I got that wrong.
I haven't been following the details of guaranteed progress discussions, so not
sure how to test this...does this correctly implement the suggested check for
function attributes?
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
b/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
index 493eb08bb9b0..ef78847cb43e 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp
@@ -548,6 +548,12 @@ bool llvm::isValidAssumeForContext(const Instruction *Inv,
if (Inv == CxtI)
return false;
+ // Use function attributes to check if execution must reach the assume.
+ const Function *F = CxtI->getFunction();
+ if (F->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::WillReturn) ||
+ F->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::NoUnwind))
+ return !isEphemeralValueOf(Inv, CxtI);
+
// The context comes first, but they're both in the same block.
// Make sure there is nothing in between that might interrupt
// the control flow, not even CxtI itself.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug._______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
