search for: woohooa

...ion +// 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) { + if (RI->getReturnValue()==0 || + std::find(RI->op_begin(), RI->op_end(), + (Value*)&I) != RI->op_end()) { + IsNextInstRet=true...

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>

...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: "TAILCALL" vs. "TAIL CALL". > okay > +SDOperand GetPossiblePreceedingTai...

...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: "TAILCALL" vs. "TAIL CALL". >> > ok...