search for: doesnotreturn

...sing these constraints explicitly in the open system involves > annotating the C++ class hierarchy with extra variants which are unnecessary > in the closed model. It looks like you might be right, and open variants might not be able to handle the pseudo-shared functions like llvm::CallInst::doesNotReturn and llvm::InvokeInst::doesNotReturn. We can't do the naive val does_not_return : [> `CallInst | `InvokeInst] t -> bool Like we can with closed variants: val does_not_return : [< llcallinst | llinvokeinst] t -> bool. Although... what if we just add another variant? This would wor...

Erick, After some experimentation, I'd prefer the closed system. LLVM has some type peculiarities like the commonality between CallInst and InvokeInst. I find that the closed type system lets me express such constraints more naturally. Expressing these constraints explicitly in the open system involves annotating the C++ class hierarchy with extra variants which are unnecessary in

You can use CallInst::hasFnAttr(). It checks for attributes in the instruction and in the function decl. http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/Instructions_8cpp_source.html#l00345 Nuno ----- Original Message ----- > Hi, > > Building the following C code I get a call instruction that has no > noreturn > attribute, while the function itself does have it. > > void foo(void **b)

Hi, Building the following C code I get a call instruction that has no noreturn attribute, while the function itself does have it. void foo(void **b) { __builtin_longjmp(b, 1); } define void @_Z3fooPPv(i8** %b) noreturn nounwind uwtable { entry: %0 = bitcast i8** %b to i8* tail call void @llvm.eh.sjlj.longjmp(i8* %0)

...s built with wrong version of ROM image */ while(1) { ; } } The -O2 level PruneEH pass uses SimplifyFunction() which contains this code: for (BasicBlock::iterator I = BB->begin(), E = BB->end(); I != E; ) if (CallInst *CI = dyn_cast<CallInst>(I++)) if (CI->doesNotReturn() && !CI->isMustTailCall() && !isa<UnreachableInst>(I)) { // This call calls a function that cannot return. Insert an // unreachable instruction after it and simplify the code. Do this // by splitting the BB, adding the unreachabl...

Hi Chris, Thanks for the reply. Right now, I disabled the doesNotReturn() check in the code for emitting calls in clang (CGCall) and also disabled running simplifycfg/prune-eh passes that introduce UnreachableInst after exit(). The main issue is that the particular transform pass that I am using in our backend does not yet support multiple loop exits and common case w...

...; &Ins = CLI.Ins; SDValue Chain = CLI.Chain; SDValue Callee = CLI.Callee; bool &isTailCall = CLI.IsTailCall; CallingConv::ID CallConv = CLI.CallConv; bool doesNotRet = CLI.DoesNotReturn; bool isVarArg = CLI.IsVarArg; The CallLoweringInfo struct now contains all parameters that were originally available as parameters. The InVals vector was left as a parameter since it is the responsibility of the LowerCall implementation to fill it and does not repr...

...;(this)) >>> return !CI->doesNotThrow(); >>> return isa<ResumeInst>(this); >>> } >>> >>> +bool Instruction::mayReturn() const { >>> + if (const CallInst *CI = dyn_cast<CallInst>(this)) >>> + return !CI->doesNotReturn(); >>> + return true; >>> +} >>> + >>> /// isAssociative - Return true if the instruction is associative: >>> /// >>> /// Associative operators satisfy: x op (y op z) === (x op y) op z >>> >>> Added: llvm/trunk/test/T...