On Sep 10, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > This testcase is missing an llvm-dis; I've fixed it.
Thanks, sorry about that :( > Also, this > patch breaks Transforms/TailCallElim/return-undef.ll, > which is testing that this transformation does happen. Ok, I just removed it. It wasn't a very useful testcase anyway. :) > Can't we > detect whether the call is going to be lowered > to inline code and disable the transformation only in that case? To be honest, I'm not really very happy with this approach (disabling tail recursion from the entry block), it's quite a hack. However, I can't think of a good way to handle this: one possibility would be to add a new "is a builtin" attribute, and attach it to the call, but that is gross in its own way. -Chris _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
