Obvious oversight in implementation in D135417.
Details
Details
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
LGTM
In many similar switches, we've got a default: llvm_unreachable("Unsupported ARM64 unwind code"); - I wonder if we should have that here too, or at least default: return false;?
Comment Actions
Looking a bit more closely, it looks like the following opcodes don't show up in the switch:
UOP_AllocLarge
UOP_AddFP
UOP_TrapFrame
UOP_Context
UOP_ClearUnwoundToCall
Not sure if this actually leads to issues in practice, but I'll follow up to address.
Comment Actions
Ok, so then we can't make it an unreachable unless we add those as well. In that case, I guess default: return false; would be simplest/safest?