[CodeGen] Remove IsVolatile from DominatingValue<RValue>::save_type #95165
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Prior to 84780af, the class didn't have any information about whether the saved value was volatile. This is NFC as far as I can tell.
llvmbot
added
clang
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-codegen Author: Akira Hatanaka (ahatanak) ChangesPrior to 84780af, the class didn't have any information about whether the saved value was volatile. This is NFC as far as I can tell. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95165.diff 2 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCleanup.cpp b/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCleanup.cpp
index 469e0363b744a..4e210a9e3c95f 100644
--- a/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCleanup.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCleanup.cpp
@@ -48,10 +48,10 @@ DominatingValue<RValue>::saved_type::save(CodeGenFunction &CGF, RValue rv) {
assert(rv.isAggregate());
Address V = rv.getAggregateAddress();
- return saved_type(
- DominatingValue<Address>::save(CGF, V), rv.isVolatileQualified(),
- DominatingValue<Address>::needsSaving(V) ? AggregateAddress
- : AggregateLiteral);
+ return saved_type(DominatingValue<Address>::save(CGF, V),
+ DominatingValue<Address>::needsSaving(V)
+ ? AggregateAddress
+ : AggregateLiteral);
}
/// Given a saved r-value produced by SaveRValue, perform the code
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ RValue DominatingValue<RValue>::saved_type::restore(CodeGenFunction &CGF) {
case AggregateLiteral:
case AggregateAddress:
return RValue::getAggregate(
- DominatingValue<Address>::restore(CGF, AggregateAddr), IsVolatile);
+ DominatingValue<Address>::restore(CGF, AggregateAddr));
case ComplexAddress: {
llvm::Value *real = DominatingLLVMValue::restore(CGF, Vals.first);
llvm::Value *imag = DominatingLLVMValue::restore(CGF, Vals.second);
diff --git a/clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.h b/clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.h
index 5739fbaaa9194..06fc7259b5901 100644
--- a/clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.h
+++ b/clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.h
@@ -221,7 +221,6 @@ template <> struct DominatingValue<RValue> {
};
LLVM_PREFERRED_TYPE(Kind)
unsigned K : 3;
- unsigned IsVolatile : 1;
saved_type(DominatingLLVMValue::saved_type Val1, unsigned K)
: Vals{Val1, DominatingLLVMValue::saved_type()}, K(K) {}
@@ -230,8 +229,7 @@ template <> struct DominatingValue<RValue> {
DominatingLLVMValue::saved_type Val2)
: Vals{Val1, Val2}, K(ComplexAddress) {}
- saved_type(DominatingValue<Address>::saved_type AggregateAddr,
- bool IsVolatile, unsigned K)
+ saved_type(DominatingValue<Address>::saved_type AggregateAddr, unsigned K)
: AggregateAddr(AggregateAddr), K(K) {}
public:
|
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Akira Hatanaka (ahatanak) ChangesPrior to 84780af, the class didn't have any information about whether the saved value was volatile. This is NFC as far as I can tell. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95165.diff 2 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCleanup.cpp b/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCleanup.cpp
index 469e0363b744a..4e210a9e3c95f 100644
--- a/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCleanup.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGCleanup.cpp
@@ -48,10 +48,10 @@ DominatingValue<RValue>::saved_type::save(CodeGenFunction &CGF, RValue rv) {
assert(rv.isAggregate());
Address V = rv.getAggregateAddress();
- return saved_type(
- DominatingValue<Address>::save(CGF, V), rv.isVolatileQualified(),
- DominatingValue<Address>::needsSaving(V) ? AggregateAddress
- : AggregateLiteral);
+ return saved_type(DominatingValue<Address>::save(CGF, V),
+ DominatingValue<Address>::needsSaving(V)
+ ? AggregateAddress
+ : AggregateLiteral);
}
/// Given a saved r-value produced by SaveRValue, perform the code
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ RValue DominatingValue<RValue>::saved_type::restore(CodeGenFunction &CGF) {
case AggregateLiteral:
case AggregateAddress:
return RValue::getAggregate(
- DominatingValue<Address>::restore(CGF, AggregateAddr), IsVolatile);
+ DominatingValue<Address>::restore(CGF, AggregateAddr));
case ComplexAddress: {
llvm::Value *real = DominatingLLVMValue::restore(CGF, Vals.first);
llvm::Value *imag = DominatingLLVMValue::restore(CGF, Vals.second);
diff --git a/clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.h b/clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.h
index 5739fbaaa9194..06fc7259b5901 100644
--- a/clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.h
+++ b/clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.h
@@ -221,7 +221,6 @@ template <> struct DominatingValue<RValue> {
};
LLVM_PREFERRED_TYPE(Kind)
unsigned K : 3;
- unsigned IsVolatile : 1;
saved_type(DominatingLLVMValue::saved_type Val1, unsigned K)
: Vals{Val1, DominatingLLVMValue::saved_type()}, K(K) {}
@@ -230,8 +229,7 @@ template <> struct DominatingValue<RValue> {
DominatingLLVMValue::saved_type Val2)
: Vals{Val1, Val2}, K(ComplexAddress) {}
- saved_type(DominatingValue<Address>::saved_type AggregateAddr,
- bool IsVolatile, unsigned K)
+ saved_type(DominatingValue<Address>::saved_type AggregateAddr, unsigned K)
: AggregateAddr(AggregateAddr), K(K) {}
public:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Prior to 84780af, the class didn't have any information about whether the saved value was volatile.
This is NFC as far as I can tell.