search for: issafetospeculate

...only+halting+nounwind+nolongjmp is going to be common and I'd feel silly if we had a special case for readnone+halting+nounwind+nolongjmp and thus couldn't optimize the more common case. That said, I'm also going to feel silly if we don't end up with enough attributes to allow isSafeToSpeculate to deduce it, which is where we are right now. I was planning to get back to fixing this after Chandler's promised PassManager work. Nick > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Nic...

...adonly+halting+nounwind+nolongjmp is going to be common and I'd feel silly if we had a special case for readnone+halting+nounwind+nolongjmp and thus couldn't optimize the more common case. That said, I'm also going to feel silly if we don't end up with enough attributes to allow isSafeToSpeculate to deduce it, which is where we are right now. I was planning to get back to fixing this after Chandler's promised PassManager work. Nick > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Nic...

I'm not sure I understand why it's blocked on that, by the way. Even if we can't apply the attribute ourselves, I don't see why we wouldn't expose that ability to frontends. I'm not entirely sure "halting" is the right attribute either, by the way. What I, personally, would like to see is a way to specify a function call is safe to speculatively execute. That

...readonly+halting+nounwind+nolongjmp is going to be common and I'd feel silly if we had a special case for readnone+halting+nounwind+nolongjmp and thus couldn't optimize the more common case. That said, I'm also going to feel silly if we don't end up with enough attributes to allow isSafeToSpeculate to deduce it, which is where we are right now. I was planning to get back to fixing this after Chandler's promised PassManager work. Nick > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu> [mailto:llvmd...

...ongjmp is going to > be common and I'd feel silly if we had a special case for > readnone+halting+nounwind+nolongjmp and thus couldn't optimize the more > common case. > > That said, I'm also going to feel silly if we don't end up with enough > attributes to allow isSafeToSpeculate to deduce it, which is where we > are right now. I was planning to get back to fixing this after > Chandler's promised PassManager work. > > Nick > > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:ll...

...be common and I'd > feel silly if we had a special case for > readnone+halting+nounwind+nolongjmp and thus couldn't optimize the more > common case. > > That said, I'm also going to feel silly if we don't end up with enough > attributes to allow isSafeToSpeculate to deduce it, which is where we > are right now. I was planning to get back to fixing this after > Chandler's promised PassManager work. > > Nick > > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: llvm...

...be common and I'd > feel silly if we had a special case for > readnone+halting+nounwind+nolongjmp and thus couldn't optimize the more > common case. > > That said, I'm also going to feel silly if we don't end up with enough > attributes to allow isSafeToSpeculate to deduce it, which is where we > are right now. I was planning to get back to fixing this after > Chandler's promised PassManager work. > > Nick > > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: llvm...

> On Sep 14, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > On 09/04/2015 01:25 PM, Owen Anderson via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> In light of recent discussions regarding updating passes to respect convergent semantics, and whether or not it is sufficient for barriers, I would like to propose a change in convergent semantics that