search for: mustail

Consider this program: @globalSideEffect = global i32 0 define void @tobeinlined() #0 { entry: store i32 3, i32* @globalSideEffect, align 4 musttail call fastcc void @tailcallee(i32 3) ret void } define fastcc void @tailcallee(i32 %i) { entry: call void @tobeinlined() ret void } attributes #0 = { alwaysinline } Clearly, if this is processed with opt -alwaysinline, it will lead

...rise. 3) This seems analogous to the "tail" marker in that it indicates a preference/option. Whatever we end up with, it needs to be a verifier option to have a "tail" or "musttail" call site which is also "notail". It also needs to be an error to have a mustail callsite to a notail function (if such ends up existing.) 4) It somewhat feels like there are two concepts being intermixed here. 1) A call site which will never be a tail call. 2) A function which we prefer not to tail call to. Does it make sense to separate them? Philip On 09/21/2015 06:2...

...ogous to the "tail" marker in that it indicates > a preference/option. Whatever we end up with, it needs to be a > verifier option to have a "tail" or "musttail" call site which is > also "notail". It also needs to be an error to have a mustail > callsite to a notail function (if such ends up existing.) > > > If we are going to annotate the function, I think we should have the > verifier catch incompatibilities between the markers on the call sites > and the function attribute on the called functions. > > If...

...hat it >> indicates a preference/option. Whatever we end up with, it >> needs to be a verifier option to have a "tail" or "musttail" >> call site which is also "notail". It also needs to be an >> error to have a mustail callsite to a notail function (if >> such ends up existing.) >> >> >> If we are going to annotate the function, I think we should have >> the verifier catch incompatibilities between the markers on the >> call sites and the function attribute...

...indicates a preference/option. Whatever we end up with, >>> it needs to be a verifier option to have a "tail" or >>> "musttail" call site which is also "notail". It also >>> needs to be an error to have a mustail callsite to a >>> notail function (if such ends up existing.) >>> >>> >>> If we are going to annotate the function, I think we should >>> have the verifier catch incompatibilities between the >>> markers on th...

+llvm-dev Can you give a bit of background on what you're trying to address here? After reading through the discussion and seeing that this is a best effort flag, I'm not sure that a function attribute is the best way to describe this. I'm open to being convinced it is, but I'd like to hear a bit more about the use case and get broader visibility on the proposal first.