[PATCH] D86859: [Coroutine] Make dealing with alloca spills more robust

[Hongtao Yu via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

hoy added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Coroutines/CoroFrame.cpp:679
   // alloca and therefore we need to copy.
-  void visitStoreInst(StoreInst &SI) { PI.setAborted(&SI); }
+  void visitStoreInst(StoreInst &SI) { PI.setEscaped(&SI); }
 
----------------
hoy wrote:
> hoy wrote:
> > lxfind wrote:
> > > hoy wrote:
> > > > If the use is the pointer, should the store be rewritten if it is dominated by coro.begin?
> > > We only visit instructions before coro.begin, so it won't be dominated by coro.begin.
> > Should we check if the use is the left-hand side or right-hand side?
> Ignore my last comment please. I'm wondering why it's changed from escaped to aborted.
So why do we change from `setAborted` to `setEscaped`?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D86859/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D86859