On 3/24/20 2:08 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
tree suspend = TREE_VEC_ELT (awaiter_calls, 1); /* await_suspend(). */
+ tree susp_type;
+ if (tree fndecl = cp_get_callee_fndecl_nofold (suspend))
+susp_type = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (fndecl));
+ else
+susp_type = TREE_TYPE (suspend);
Why,
Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 3/24/20 2:08 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Hi Nathan,
Thanks for the review,
comments embedded and a new version attached.
@David, you added the CALL_EXPR_MUST_TAIL_CALL which I’ve made use of
here (but with an observation). Perhaps you would be able to comment on
whether
On 3/24/20 2:08 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Hi Nathan,
Thanks for the review,
comments embedded and a new version attached.
@David, you added the CALL_EXPR_MUST_TAIL_CALL which I’ve made use of
here (but with an observation). Perhaps you would be able to comment on whether
I’ve (ab-)used it
void_expr_stmt (resume, loc);
>> + add_stmt (resume);
>> +
>> + r = build_stmt (loc, RETURN_EXPR, NULL);
>> + r = maybe_cleanup_point_expr_void (r);
>
> Shouldn't there be no cleanups? Perhaps assert it didn't add any?
no, you’re right, that call’s a waste of time -
On 3/20/20 11:40 AM, Iain Sandoe via Gcc-patches wrote:
2020-03-20 Iain Sandoe
* coroutines.cc (coro_init_identifiers): Initialize an identifier
for the cororoutine handle 'address' method name.
(struct coro_aw_data): Add fields to cover the continuations.
Hi,
This is the final (non-bug-fixing) patch to bring our implementation
into line with n4849.
===
Although the note in the text [expr.await] / 5.1.1 is not normative,
it is asserted by users that an implementation that is unable to
perform unlimited symmetric transfers is not terribly
