Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "c40283ad".
2010 May 02
0
[LLVMdev] Adding a halting function attribute?
> On reflection, perhaps this isn't so bad. This really only matters when
> the compiler is able to infer readnone/readonly, which typically doesn't
> include cases with indirect calls. Per #2, I think it could be handled
> by making the GCC-style pure/const attributes imply both
> readonly/readnone *and* halting.
This sounds right to me.
John
2010 May 12
1
[LLVMdev] Adding a halting function attribute?
...ng") a property of the
control-flow whereas pure/const describe the class of effects of the
function? Why merge these distinct properties?
--
Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100512/c40283ad/attachment.html>
2010 May 02
3
[LLVMdev] Adding a halting function attribute?
On May 1, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On May 1, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Owen Anderson wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> In a recent blog post, John Regehr pointed out that LLVM is currently optimizing away read-only functions containing infinite loops whose return values are never used. The culprit for the moment is the inliner, but the more insidious problem