From 1977d15e024acc636f97dc2461fcd3fd01ddcd8f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Gottesman Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:56:23 +0000 Subject: [stackprotector] Added significantly longer comment to FindPotentialTailCall to make clear its relationship to llvm::isInTailCallPosition. llvm-svn: 188770 --- llvm/lib/CodeGen/StackProtector.cpp | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'llvm/lib/CodeGen/StackProtector.cpp') diff --git a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/StackProtector.cpp b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/StackProtector.cpp index b45459a4f6dc..2cd2219ac920 100644 --- a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/StackProtector.cpp +++ b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/StackProtector.cpp @@ -280,7 +280,12 @@ static bool InstructionWillNotHaveChain(const Instruction *I) { /// Identify if RI has a previous instruction in the "Tail Position" and return /// it. Otherwise return 0. /// -/// This is based off of the code in llvm::isInTailCallPosition +/// This is based off of the code in llvm::isInTailCallPosition. The difference +/// is that it inverts the first part of llvm::isInTailCallPosition since +/// isInTailCallPosition is checking if a call is in a tail call position, and +/// we are searching for an unknown tail call that might be in the tail call +/// position. Once we find the call though, the code uses the same refactored +/// code, returnTypeIsEligibleForTailCall. static CallInst *FindPotentialTailCall(BasicBlock *BB, ReturnInst *RI, const TargetLoweringBase *TLI) { // Establish a reasonable upper bound on the maximum amount of instructions we -- cgit v1.2.3