[PATCH] D140369: [PowerPC] update PPCTTIImpl::supportsTailCallFor() check conditions

[ChenZheng via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

shchenz added a comment.

hmm, another issue cause by inconsistent logic for the tail call check between the IR coro-split pass and the instruction selection pass. Should we make them be consistent to avoid more issues?
For example, can we refactor `IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization_64SVR4` and `IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization()` and call them in the TTI function `supportsTailCallFor`? I see there is a `SelectionDAG &DAG` parameter for these two functions, but the `DAG` is used to get the  Caller `Function`, I think it should be easy to change the `SelectionDAG` to a `Function` parameter?

And for `mayBeEmittedAsTailCall()`, maybe we should also add another patch to extend it for non 64BitELFABI targets?



================
Comment at: llvm/test/Transforms/Coroutines/coro-split-musttail-ppc64le.ll:14
+; RUN:     -mtriple=ppc32-- | FileCheck %s
+; REQUIRES: asserts
 
----------------
Why `asserts` is required? I don't see checks of debug logs?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D140369/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D140369