[PATCH] D30115: [RFC] Add MachineInstr::MIFlag parameter to storeRegToStackSlot

[Nemanja Ivanovic via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

nemanjai added a comment.

This may be a dumb question, but doesn't the call to `setMIFlags(Flags)` run the risk of overwriting any flags set on the instruction through other means? I assume that instructions defined by a back end in the target description files could set flags when the instruction is built which would then be overridden here. Wouldn't we want the flags to be added (or-ed) to any existing flags on the instruction?
Of course, I may be misunderstanding the mechanism by which the flags are set so this could very well not be an issue. Feel free to ignore the comment if that is so.

Also, I agree that the default argument for the `Flags` parameter does seem like a cleaner solution.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D30115