uweigand wrote: > Could we not use the same approach that the existing `LOAD_STACK_GUARD` uses > in order to avoid the canary being spilled? I.e. could we not mark > `LOAD_STACK_GUARD_ADDRESS` `isReMaterializable`, and do some further nudging > with kill flags to ensure that the value isn't reused?
If that works reliably, I guess I'd be fine with it. We should have test cases to demonstrate that it is isn't spilled, however. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/169317 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
