ret i8* %m
}
+
+define void @test_2() {
+; Since the deopt operand bundle does not escape %m (see caveat below), it is
+; legal to elide the final store that location.
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test_2(
+ %m = call i8* @malloc(i32 24)
+ tail call void @f() [ "deopt"(i8* %m) ]
+ store i8 -19, i8* %m
+ ret void
+
+; CHECK: tail call void @f() [ "deopt"(i8* %m) ]
+; CHECK-NEXT ret void
+}
+
+define i8* @test_3() {
+; Since the deopt operand bundle does not escape %m (see caveat below), @f
+; cannot observe the stores to %m
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test_3(
+ %m = call i8* @malloc(i32 24)
+ tail call void @f() [ "deopt"(i8* %m) ]
+ store i8 -19, i8* %m
+ tail call void @f()
+ store i8 101, i8* %m
+ ret i8* %m
+}
+
+
+; Caveat: technically, %m can only escape if the calling function is deoptimized
+; at the call site (i.e. the call returns to the "deopt" continuation). Since
+; the calling function body will be invalidated in that case, the calling
+; function can be optimized under the assumption that %m does not escape.