search for: isnextinstructionreturn

...perform an optimization. IsEligibleForTailCallElimination() should determine the feasibility on its own, no? +// check whether the instruction following the tailcall is a return instruction +// and whether its return type is void or if it uses the value defined by the +// tail call +bool IsNextInstructionReturn(Instruction &I) { + bool IsNextInstRet = false; + BasicBlock *BB = I.getParent(); + BasicBlock::iterator BI = &I; + assert(BI != BB->end() && "Woohooa"); + ++BI; + if (BI != BB->end()) { + ReturnInst *RI = dyn_cast<ReturnInst>(BI); + if (RI) { +...

The patch is against revision 42247. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tailcall-src.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 62639 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070923/4770302f/attachment.obj>

...> > case CallingConv::Fast: > if (isTailCall && PerformTailCallOpt) > return LowerX86_TailCallTo(Op, DAG, CallingConv); > else > return LowerCCCCallTo(Op,DAG, CallingConv); > Some stylistic nitpicks. Please write the comments as: > /// IsNextInstructionReturn - Check whether.. Will do. > + assert(BI != BB->end() && "Woohooa"); > Better assertion messages please. :-) > > Why not write it like this: > okay > Also, shouldn't this function be "static"? okay > Please fix the inconsistency: "TAILCA...

...::Fast: >> if (isTailCall && PerformTailCallOpt) >> return LowerX86_TailCallTo(Op, DAG, CallingConv); >> else >> return LowerCCCCallTo(Op,DAG, CallingConv); > > >> Some stylistic nitpicks. Please write the comments as: >> /// IsNextInstructionReturn - Check whether.. > Will do. >> + assert(BI != BB->end() && "Woohooa"); >> Better assertion messages please. :-) >> >> Why not write it like this: >> > okay >> Also, shouldn't this function be "static"? > okay >>...