search for: d68516

...e number of operands caused some noise, but it is the changes in the amount of 'uses' of a pointer that refer to the same instruction that caused the most problems. Especially when that instruction was going to be erased. Operand bundles will still need those code changes. (like in parts of D68516 and D68518) As the 'Call' instruction already supports operand bundles, it could eliminate the need for the 'llvm.noalias.arg.guard' intrinsic, which combines the normal pointer with the side channel (aka provenance). But, after inlining, we still need to put that information somew...

...e number of operands caused some noise, but it is the changes in the amount of 'uses' of a pointer that refer to the same instruction that caused the most problems. Especially when that instruction was going to be erased. Operand bundles will still need those code changes. (like in parts of D68516 and D68518) As the 'Call' instruction already supports operand bundles, it could eliminate the need for the 'llvm.noalias.arg.guard' intrinsic, which combines the normal pointer with the side channel (aka provenance). But, after inlining, we still need to put that information somew...

...e number of operands caused some noise, but it is the changes in the amount of 'uses' of a pointer that refer to the same instruction that caused the most problems. Especially when that instruction was going to be erased. Operand bundles will still need those code changes. (like in parts of D68516 and D68518) As the 'Call' instruction already supports operand bundles, it could eliminate the need for the 'llvm.noalias.arg.guard' intrinsic, which combines the normal pointer with the side channel (aka provenance). But, after inlining, we still need to put that information somew...

Hi Alexey, >From: Alexey Zhikhartsev [..] > We would love to see your patches merged as soon as possible, so I was wondering: do you think the lack of bitcode support will prevent that from happening? Yes, I think that the lack of bitcode support will prevent it. During the Developers meeting, I also talked with Hal and Johannes. They had some extra remarks: - (1) the restrict

...e number of operands caused some noise, but it is the changes in the amount of 'uses' of a pointer that refer to the same instruction that caused the most problems. Especially when that instruction was going to be erased. Operand bundles will still need those code changes. (like in parts of D68516 and D68518) As the 'Call' instruction already supports operand bundles, it could eliminate the need for the 'llvm.noalias.arg.guard' intrinsic, which combines the normal pointer with the side channel (aka provenance). But, after inlining, we still need to put that information somew...

...e number of operands caused some noise, but it is the changes in the amount of 'uses' of a pointer that refer to the same instruction that caused the most problems. Especially when that instruction was going to be erased. Operand bundles will still need those code changes. (like in parts of D68516 and D68518) As the 'Call' instruction already supports operand bundles, it could eliminate the need for the 'llvm.noalias.arg.guard' intrinsic, which combines the normal pointer with the side channel (aka provenance). But, after inlining, we still need to put that information somew...