[PATCH] D35979: [X86] Fix a crash in FEntryInserter Pass.

[David Blaikie via llvm-commits]

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:23 AM Manoj Gupta via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> manojgupta marked 3 inline comments as done.
> manojgupta added a comment.
>
> David, your comment didn't make it here. So adding it myself.
>
> The call to fentry is unconditionally added to the beginning of function.


& the other instruction may not be in the entry block?


> Should the call use the same debug location of the previous instruction if
> present?
>

No - it'll probably get that location anyway, later on/at code generation
time, but you shouldn't add it to the instruction itself if it doesn't have
any reason to be related/at that location.

- Dave


>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:33 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Depends what you mean by "unrelated" - if the new instruction is created
> because of/only in the presence of the old instruction, yaeh, using its
> debugloc may be appropriate. (Though if the new instruction may be created
> in a different basic block - that gets trickier)
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D35979
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20170728/89269e97/attachment.html>