search for: libsimplify

...doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I want the attribute to be in the 'enum' list because string attributes are meant more for target-dependent attributes rather than IR-level attributes. (The distinction isn't set in stone, but I feel that this doesn't need to be a string.) The LibSimplify code will check the function containing the call/invoke for the `NoBuiltin' attribute to see if it is allowed to simplify the builtin. What do you think? -bw

...or to call/invoke instructions, because that kind of granularity doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think we should do it, otherwise inlining is unnecessarily harmed. Given that attributes are displayed in .ll files with the # syntax, there should be no bloat/unreadability impact. > The LibSimplify code will check the function containing the call/invoke for the `NoBuiltin' attribute to see if it is allowed to simplify the builtin. > What do you think? Sounds ok, but I think the attribute should be on compiled call sites instead of compiled function bodies. If we're going to do th...

...nstructions, because that kind of granularity doesn't make a lot of sense to me. > > I think we should do it, otherwise inlining is unnecessarily harmed. Given that attributes are displayed in .ll files with the # syntax, there should be no bloat/unreadability impact. > >> The LibSimplify code will check the function containing the call/invoke for the `NoBuiltin' attribute to see if it is allowed to simplify the builtin. >> What do you think? > > Sounds ok, but I think the attribute should be on compiled call sites instead of compiled function bodies. If we're...

On Feb 18, 2013, at 10:31 PM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> In the context of LTO, it makes sense for the attribute to be on function bodies, not on prototypes. >>>> >>> Yeah, I noticed that after sending this patch. I modified it to check the function CI is in for that attribute. >> >> Was that in the

On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: >>> Hi Bill, >>> >>> I think the concept of this patch makes sense, but the implementation does not. >>> >>> I have: >>> >>> void foo() { >>>