[PATCH] D146758: Fix codegen for coroutine with function-try-block

[Matthias Braun via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

MatzeB added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCoroutine.cpp:724-730
+      Stmt *BodyStmt = S.getBody();
+      CompoundStmt *Body = dyn_cast<CompoundStmt>(BodyStmt);
+      if (Body == nullptr) {
+        Body =
+            CompoundStmt::Create(getContext(), {BodyStmt}, FPOptionsOverride(),
+                                 SourceLocation(), SourceLocation());
+      }
----------------
ChuanqiXu wrote:
> Can we try to move the logic to `CoroutineStmtBuilder`? That makes me feel better. And it will be helpful to add a comment to tell that we're handling the case the function body is function-try-block.
I'll add a detailed comment. But would you be fine leaving the statements here as-is? The logic only makes sense in the context of using the `Body` to create a `CXXTryStmt` below (it's really an effect of `CXXTryStmt` only accepting CompountStmt operands).


================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCoroutine.cpp:724-730
+      Stmt *BodyStmt = S.getBody();
+      CompoundStmt *Body = dyn_cast<CompoundStmt>(BodyStmt);
+      if (Body == nullptr) {
+        Body =
+            CompoundStmt::Create(getContext(), {BodyStmt}, FPOptionsOverride(),
+                                 SourceLocation(), SourceLocation());
+      }
----------------
ChuanqiXu wrote:
> MatzeB wrote:
> > ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > > Can we try to move the logic to `CoroutineStmtBuilder`? That makes me feel better. And it will be helpful to add a comment to tell that we're handling the case the function body is function-try-block.
> > I'll add a detailed comment. But would you be fine leaving the statements here as-is? The logic only makes sense in the context of using the `Body` to create a `CXXTryStmt` below (it's really an effect of `CXXTryStmt` only accepting CompountStmt operands).
> It looks like you didn't address the comments. Would you like to address it? I don't mind to address it later myself.
Did you mean to create a new function named `CoroutineStmtBuilder` like I did now?


================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCoroutine.cpp:726
+      CompoundStmt *Body = dyn_cast<CompoundStmt>(BodyStmt);
+      if (Body == nullptr) {
+        Body =
----------------
ChuanqiXu wrote:
> It reads better to specify the potential type for Body.
I will mention a single-statement body as an example in the comment now. Putting an `assert` here feels unnecessary and may be in the way if in the future we ever allow other types of single-statement function bodies.


================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenCoroutines/coro-function-try-block.cpp:21-23
+// CHECK-LABEL: define{{.*}} void @_Z1fv(
+// CHECK: call void @_ZNSt13suspend_never13await_suspendESt16coroutine_handleIvE(
+// CHECK: call void @_ZN4task12promise_type11return_voidEv(
----------------
ChuanqiXu wrote:
> I expect to see the nested try statements in the case.
This was mostly meant as a test for "does not crash the compiler", so it is just checking some parts of the output without caring too much what they are specifically.

I cannot test for nested try statements, because in llvm-ir those are already lowered to unwind tables and landing pad blocks, but there's neither a "try" statement nor an immediate nesting I could test for.



Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D146758/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D146758