RamNalamothu added a comment. In D156086#4536992 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156086#4536992>, @jasonmolenda wrote:
> In D156086#4530507 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156086#4530507>, @RamNalamothu > wrote: > >> In D156086#4529791 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156086#4529791>, @jasonmolenda >> wrote: >> >>> > > > >>> Does `isBranch` include other variants like `isUnconditionalBranch`? >> >> No. They are implemented as separate methods. You can see that with a full >> context diff of MCInstrAnalysis.h changes in this revision or >> MCInstrAnalysis.h >> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/include/llvm/MC/MCInstrAnalysis.h> > > `mayAffectControlFlow` doesn't test for `isUnconditionalBranch`. Is that a > problem? I didn't look through the different property check methods like > this, but I happened to notice this one and see it wasn't detected in > `mayAffectControlFlow`. Maybe I misunderstood something. The idea is MCInstrAnalysis's default implementation just replicates what MCInstrDesc does (MCInstrDesc::mayAffectControlFlow <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/MC/MCInstrDesc.cpp#L20>) and the individual targets can refine those methods as needed. In D156086#4537284 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156086#4537284>, @MaskRay wrote: > It seems that a lldb specific test is needed. Adding a new method to > `llvm/include/llvm/MC/MCInstrAnalysis.h` is fine with me, though I haven't > checked the semantics. I will try to add a lldb specific test. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156086/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156086 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
