search for: d86233

...ai Hähnle wrote: > Hi Johannes, > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 11:17 PM Johannes Doerfert > <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > As a separate comment, I don't find the reference to the C++ spec in >> >> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D86233 to be informative enough. Whenever >> >> > that section of the C++ spec talks about "progress" it is >> referring to >> >> > how some abstract scheduler schedules execution of multiple threads. >> >> > That is, it is talking abou...

...t we don’t optimize now and we wouldn’t preserve loops that we don’t preserve now. The current implementations are in: - Changes to the LoopDeletion Pass: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86844 - Changes to the Clang Frontend: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86841 - Changes to LangRef: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86233 - Changed to IR: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85393 The changes preserve what was previously accepted as the “default behavior” [5]. That is, you get forward progress assumption in case a function is not marked with the `maynotprogress` attribute. Here the default behavior is that LLVM IR functions a...

...ld not remove them if they carry the `maynotprogress` attribute, and you can drop the `maynotprogress` attribute once you proven it will make progress, e.g., once you proven `willreturn`. > As a separate comment, I don't find the reference to the C++ spec in > https://reviews.llvm.org/D86233 to be informative enough. Whenever > that section of the C++ spec talks about "progress" it is referring to > how some abstract scheduler schedules execution of multiple threads. > That is, it is talking about the dynamic behavior of the > implementation. On the other hand...

...rst part will be part of this change set. >> The current implementations are in: >> - Changes to the LoopDeletion Pass: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86844 >> - Changes to the Clang Frontend: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86841 >> - Changes to LangRef: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86233 >> - Changed to IR: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85393 >> >> The changes preserve what was previously accepted as the “default >> behavior” [5]. That is, you get forward progress assumption in case a >> function is not marked with the `maynotprogress` attribute. Here...

...progress guarantee need annotations (which need to be preserved). > Perhaps something about recursion, as mentioned above? That's not clear to me. > > >>  > As a separate comment, I don't find the reference to the C++ spec in >>  > https://reviews.llvm.org/D86233 to be informative enough. Whenever >>  > that section of the C++ spec talks about "progress" it is referring to >>  > how some abstract scheduler schedules execution of multiple threads. >>  > That is, it is talking about the dynamic behavior of the >&gt...

Hi James, On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:05 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:42 PM Atmn Patel <atmndp at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Hal, >> >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 8:54 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, Atmn, >> > >> > Has anyone else expressed an

...gt; >> >> The current implementations are in: >> >> - Changes to the LoopDeletion Pass: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86844 >> >> - Changes to the Clang Frontend: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86841 >> >> - Changes to LangRef: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86233 >> >> - Changed to IR: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85393 >> >> >> >> The changes preserve what was previously accepted as the “default >> >> behavior” [5]. That is, you get forward progress assumption in case a >> >> function is no...