search for: 27d91b74

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Max Stonebraker<max.stonebraker at gmail.com> wrote: > Is there any way to avoid having the unreachables inserted in the first > place? If there's sensible control flow after a function returns, don't mark it or calls to it noreturn. If in fact cannot return, the concept of control flow after the function returns fundamentally makes no sense.

...to it noreturn. If in fact cannot return, the concept of > control flow after the function returns fundamentally makes no sense. > > -Eli > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090920/27d91b74/attachment.html>

> if so, the assembly language docs say that > program behavior is undefined if such a function > ever returns. Yes, that's true, but for some static analysis applications such as control dependence analysis for programs that have arbitrary interprocedural control flow, one needs these additional non-executable control flow edges from noreturn functions to their immediate CFG