ChuanqiXu accepted this revision. ChuanqiXu added inline comments. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/Scope.cpp:152-154 + // Consider the variable as NRVO candidate if the return slot is available + // for it in the current scope, or if it can be available in outer scopes. + NRVO = CanBePutInReturnSlot ? VD : nullptr; ---------------- rusyaev-roman wrote: > ChuanqiXu wrote: > > rusyaev-roman wrote: > > > ChuanqiXu wrote: > > > > What if NRVO contains a value already? It is possible due to the value > > > > of NRVO could be set by its children. > > > Actually this is intention. If the parent has already NRVO candidate, > > > then it should be invalidated (or not). Let's consider the following > > > examples: > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > X foo(bool b) { > > > X x; > > > X y; > > > if (b) > > > return x; > > > else > > > return y; // when we process this return statement, the parent has > > > already NRVO and it will be invalidated (this is correct behavior) > > > } > > > ``` > > > > > > ``` > > > X foo(bool b) { > > > X x; > > > if (b) > > > return x; > > > > > > X y; > > > // when we process this return statement, the parent has already NRVO > > > and it WON't be invalidated > > > // (this is correct behavior), because a return slot will be > > > available for it > > > return y; > > > } > > > ``` > > > > > > ``` > > > X foo(bool b) { > > > X x; > > > if (b) > > > return x; > > > > > > // when we process this return statement, the parent has already NRVO > > > and it WON't be invalidated (this is correct behavior) > > > return x; > > > } > > > ``` > > > > > > ``` > > > X foo(bool b, X x) { > > > X y; > > > > > > if (b) > > > return x; > > > > > > // when we process this return statement, the parent contains nullptr > > > (invalid candidate) and it will be invalidated (this is correct behavior) > > > return y; > > > } > > > ``` > > > > > > ``` > > > X foo(bool b, X x) { > > > if (b) > > > return x; > > > > > > X y; > > > // when we process this return statement, the parent contains nullptr > > > (invalid candidate) and it WON't be invalidated (this is correct behavior) > > > return y; > > > } > > > ``` > > Oh, I see. Tricky. I don't find invalid cases now. But I recommend to > > comment that the children would maintain the `ReturnSlots` of their > > parents. (This is anti-intuition) > > > > Have you tested any larger projects? Like libc++, libstdc++ or something > > like folly. I feel we need to do such tests to avoid we get anything wrong. > I've already added a comment at the beginning of `updateNRVOCandidate` > function where this point is mentioned: > ``` > // ... Therefore, we need to clear return slots for other > // variables defined before the current return statement in the current > // scope and in outer scopes. > ``` > If it's not enough, please let me know. > > > > Have you tested any larger projects? > > Yes, I've built the `clang` itself and `compiler-rt` project. Then I've > checked them to run 'check-all' (on built clang and compiler-rt). Everything > works. Great! Clang should be large enough. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119792/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119792 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits