Previously we only handled the case where the csect hadn't been set up yet, so we'd hit an assert later on.
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
- Build Status
Buildable 41939 Build 42274: arc lint + arc unit
Event Timeline
llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/aix-xcoff-toc.ll | ||
---|---|---|
31 | This needs a comment to explain why a second function is useful for the test. The fact that this tests for a bug that need not have existed is non-obvious. | |
86 | It is possible to use an expression here that is based on the value observed for the TOC base? Similarly for the lines below. |
llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCAsmPrinter.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1897 | nit: This return statement is like a short cut, maybe we could remove it to make this if block simpler? |
LGTM with minor nit.
llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/aix-xcoff-toc.ll | ||
---|---|---|
31 | Suggestion for comment: |
llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCAsmPrinter.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1888 | How do we know that having the containing csect set is enough to know that the storage class has been set? Should we have an assume after the if block that the storage class is set? Or perhaps a comment that the containing csect could not have been set without the storage class being set on the symbol. |
How do we know that having the containing csect set is enough to know that the storage class has been set? Should we have an assume after the if block that the storage class is set? Or perhaps a comment that the containing csect could not have been set without the storage class being set on the symbol.