[PATCH] D29020: [ARM] Change TCReturn to tBL if tailcall optimization fails.

[Renato Golin via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

rengolin added a comment.

Thanks!

Now, I'm trying to understand what the problem is.

It seems that a previous process to deal with tail calls missed a spot, and you're adding the fix on the last possible stage to just change it to a branch&link.

The idea seems fine, but I'm worried that the implementation could leave untested areas uncovered.

Not to mention that, if there is a process that deals with tail calls, the code should not leave that unchecked. Ie. there should be no `TCRETURN*` after it at all.

I don't remember well that part of the code, so I may be missing something, but it looks to me that there is a more encompassing solution that we're not seeing here.

Also, from the test alone, it's not clear what cases fail to be processed and what don't. Can you elaborate on the description of the review what was the problem you found, what was the approach and what cases you hope to have covered?

cheers,
--renato


https://reviews.llvm.org/D29020