[llvm-dev] Placement of static allocas

[Mahesha S via llvm-dev]

Agreed.

Thanks,
Mahesha


On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 2:56 PM Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com> wrote:

> > If there are interleaved static allocas with function call in-between,
> such an ir is considered broken, even though the ir is valid from
> correctness perspective.
>
> This is a strange use of the word "broken". Broken generally means not
> correct or not valid.
>
> Maybe say something like "such an ir is considered suboptimal"?
>
> Jay.
>
> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 15:41, Mahesha S via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi-
> >
> > Here is my understanding and assumption about the placement of static
> allocas:
> >
> > "All static allocas should appear in the entry basic block before any
> function call for better optimization opportunities. If there are
> interleaved static allocas with function call in-between, such an ir is
> considered broken, even though the ir is valid from correctness
> perspective. And if any pass is not adhering to the requirement that all
> static allocas should be placed in the entry block before any function
> call, then such a pass is considered broken since it may lead to surprising
> results in general."
> >
> > Let me know if my above understanding is correct or not.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mahesha
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210923/9f7f8120/attachment.html>