The original patch is incorrect since it marks too many calls to be noinline. It shows that it is bad to do analysis in the frontend again. This patch tries to mark the await_suspend function as noinlne only. --- Close https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56301 Close https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/64151 Close https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/65018 See the summary and the discussion of https://reviews.llvm.org/D157070 to get the full context. As @rjmccall pointed out, the key point of the root cause is that currently we didn't implement the semantics for '@llvm.coro.save' well ("after the await-ready returns false, the coroutine is considered to be suspended ") well. Since the semantics implies that we (the compiler) shouldn't write the spills into the coroutine frame in the await_suspend. But now it is possible due to some combinations of the optimizations so the semantics are broken. And the inlining is the root optimization of such optimizations. So in this patch, we tried to add the `noinline` attribute to the await_suspend function. This looks slightly problematic since the users are able to call the await_suspend function standalone. This is limited by the implementation. On the one hand, we don't want the workaround solution (See the proposed solution later) to be too complex. On the other hand, it is rare to call await_suspend standalone. Also it is not semantically incorrect to do so since the inlining is not part of the C++ standard. Also as an optimization, we don't add the `noinline` attribute to the await_suspend function if the awaiter is an empty class. This should be correct since the programmers can't access the local variables in await_suspend if the awaiter is empty. I think this is necessary for the performance since it is pretty common. The long term solution is: call @llvm.coro.await_suspend(ptr %awaiter, ptr %handle, ptr @awaitSuspendFn) Then it is much easier to perform the safety analysis in the middle end. If it is safe to inline the call to awaitSuspend, we can replace it in the CoroEarly pass. Otherwise we could replace it in the CoroSplit pass. Reviewed By: rjmccall Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D157833
2.7 KiB
2.7 KiB