[llvm-commits] PATCH: BasicBlock metadata

[Richard Osborne]

On 08/05/12 11:29, Ralf Karrenberg wrote:
> On 5/8/12 11:40 AM, Richard Osborne wrote:
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ralf
>>>     /// hasAddressTaken - returns true if there are any uses of this basic block
>>>     /// other than direct branches, switches, etc. to it.
>>> -  bool hasAddressTaken() const { return getSubclassDataFromValue() != 0; }
>>> +  bool hasAddressTaken() const {
>>> +    return (getSubclassDataFromValue()&  ~HasMetadataBit) != 0;
>>> +  }
>> I think this will result in basic block metadata effecting 
>> optimizations. What would happen if you just ignored metadata here?
> It will always treat a block that has metadata attached as a block 
> whose address has been taken, which results in a crash at a later 
> point (don't remember exactly where) because the address was never taken.
Ah sorry, I totally misread this bit of the code. It looks fine to me.

-- 
Richard Osborne | XMOS
http://www.xmos.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20120508/3d412729/attachment.html>