Has there been any discussion of supporting the 'restrict' C99 keyword and C++ extension to boost alias analysis? My impression is that this would require modification of the LLVM IR. I couldn't find any discussion hits using the usual suspects for searches... -- Christopher Lamb christopher.lamb at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070324/6b9536ee/attachment.html>
Also, isn't this going to be critical to supporting FORTRAN well? On Mar 24, 2007, at 11:58 PM, Christopher Lamb wrote:> Has there been any discussion of supporting the 'restrict' C99 > keyword and C++ extension to boost alias analysis? My impression is > that this would require modification of the LLVM IR. I couldn't > find any discussion hits using the usual suspects for searches... > > -- > Christopher Lamb > christopher.lamb at gmail.com > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070325/d7e58e72/attachment.html>
On Mar 25, 2007, at 2:18 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Christopher Lamb wrote: >> Has there been any discussion of supporting the 'restrict' C99 >> keyword >> and C++ extension to boost alias analysis? My impression is that this >> would require modification of the LLVM IR. I couldn't find any >> discussion hits using the usual suspects for searches... > > So far, there hasn't been a discussion. IMO, the most important > form is > for formal arguments. That could easily be added thorough the use > of an > attribute on the parameter.I assume the idea here is to avoid actually attributing the type (as was avoided with signed/unsigned integers by differentiating ops). What about an approach not unlike how debugging information is handled? That is have an llvm intrinsic that encodes the known alias free range for a pointer. -- Christopher Lamb christopher.lamb at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070325/8dbfadf9/attachment.html>
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Christopher Lamb wrote:> Has there been any discussion of supporting the 'restrict' C99 keyword > and C++ extension to boost alias analysis? My impression is that this > would require modification of the LLVM IR. I couldn't find any > discussion hits using the usual suspects for searches...So far, there hasn't been a discussion. IMO, the most important form is for formal arguments. That could easily be added thorough the use of an attribute on the parameter. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/