[PATCH] D103593: [Coroutine] Sink lifetime markers after switch of suspend blocks to avoid disturbing must tail calls

[Chuanqi Xu via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

ChuanqiXu added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Coroutines/CoroFrame.cpp:2343
            "should have split coro.suspend into its own block");
-    DomSet.insert(SuspendBlock->getSingleSuccessor());
+    BasicBlock *SwitchBlock = SuspendBlock->getSingleSuccessor();
+    for (auto *BB : llvm::successors(SwitchBlock))
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> Can we assert that this is a switch block somehow?  This is very dangerous if the code pattern isn't what we expect.
The terminator of `SuspendBlock->getSingleSuccessor()` isn't necessarily  a `SwitchInst` actually. Precious name is misunderstanding, my bad. I add comments to clarify it.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D103593/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D103593