================
@@ -260,10 +279,38 @@ void bar() {
// X86-NEXT: %[[ARRSZ:.*]] = mul i32 4, %[[COOKIE:.*]]
// X64-NEXT: %[[TOTALSZ:.*]] = add i64 %[[ARRSZ]], 8
// X86-NEXT: %[[TOTALSZ:.*]] = add i32 %[[ARRSZ]], 4
-// X64-NEXT: call void @"??_V@YAXPEAX_K@Z"(ptr noundef %2, i64 noundef
%[[TOTALSZ]])
-// X86-NEXT: call void @"??_V@YAXPAXI@Z"(ptr noundef %2, i32 noundef
%[[TOTALSZ]])
+// X64-NEXT: call void @"?__global_delete@@YAXPEAX_K@Z"(ptr noundef %2, i64
noundef %[[TOTALSZ]])
+// X86-NEXT: call void @"?__global_delete@@YAXPAXI@Z"(ptr noundef %2, i32
noundef %[[TOTALSZ]])
// CHECK-NEXT: br label %dtor.continue
+// Test that when a class provides its own operator delete, the deleting
+// destructor calls __global_delete (a weak external) instead of directly
----------------
Fznamznon wrote:
Not weak, right?
```suggestion
// destructor calls __global_delete instead of directly
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/188372
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
