Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "d86841".
2020 Sep 11
4
[RFC] Introducing the maynotprogress IR attribute
...ed with C11 or later so we can
tightly adhere to both the C and C++ standards, and the other changes
that need to be made will be forthcoming. Thanks again to James, that
particular example was pretty cool, and I agree that it may be best to
follow that interpretation.
[0] https://reviews.llvm.org/D86841
> -Hal
>
> On 9/10/20 1:21 PM, Atmn Patel wrote:
> > Hi Nicolai and Hal,
> >
> > I was wondering if your present concerns regarding the directions of
> > the proposed attributes and semantics of the current direction had
> > been addressed, so I thought I...
2020 Sep 11
2
[RFC] Introducing the maynotprogress IR attribute
...e to both the C and C++ standards, and the other changes
>> that need to be made will be forthcoming. Thanks again to James, that
>> particular example was pretty cool, and I agree that it may be best to
>> follow that interpretation.
>>
>> [0] https://reviews.llvm.org/D86841
>
>
> You mean that you now apply maynotprogress to all functions in C, right? But why only C11 and later? I think all versions of C should get the maynotprogress function attribute? (Or, with the change I suggest above: only C++ code should get the "mustprogress" function attrib...
2020 Sep 04
2
[RFC] Introducing the maynotprogress IR attribute
...adata is
dropped, we would not optimize away loops that 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....
2020 Sep 10
2
[RFC] Introducing the maynotprogress IR attribute
Hi Nicolai and Hal,
I was wondering if your present concerns regarding the directions of
the proposed attributes and semantics of the current direction had
been addressed, so I thought I'd send over a friendly ping. Have they?
Atmn
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:08 AM Johannes Doerfert
<johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/8/20 9:08 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> >
2020 Sep 05
4
[RFC] Introducing the maynotprogress IR attribute
...t that
is an optimization and not required. The patch for the first 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
>>...
2020 Sep 09
2
[RFC] Introducing the maynotprogress IR attribute
...or the first 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 ge...