ret void
}
+; On a non-gc function, we should NOT get an entry safepoint
+define void @test_negative() {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test_negative
+entry:
+; CHECK-NOT: statepoint
+ ret void
+}
+
; Do we insert a backedge safepoint in a statically
; infinite loop?
define void @test_backedge() gc "statepoint-example" {
br label %other
other:
; CHECK-LABEL: other
-; CHECK: statepoint
+; CHECK: statepoint
+; CHECK-NOT: gc.result
call void @foo()
ret void
}
+declare zeroext i1 @i1_return_i1(i1)
+
+define i1 @test_call_with_result() gc "statepoint-example" {
+; CHECK-LABEL: test_call_with_result
+; This is checking that a statepoint_poll + statepoint + result is
+; inserted for a function that takes 1 argument.
+; CHECK: gc.statepoint.p0f_isVoidf
+; CHECK: gc.statepoint.p0f_i1i1f
+; CHECK: (i64 2882400000, i32 0, i1 (i1)* @i1_return_i1, i32 1, i32 0, i1 false, i32 0, i32 0)
+; CHECK: %call1.2 = call i1 @llvm.experimental.gc.result.i1
+entry:
+ %call1 = tail call i1 (i1) @i1_return_i1(i1 false)
+ ret i1 %call1
+}
; This function is inlined when inserting a poll. To avoid recursive
; issues, make sure we don't place safepoints in it.