search for: setonlyreadsmemory

Hello, I'm in a situation where my code is calling many native functions. Sometimes, these calls are simply calls to static "accessor" methods that read a variable in some class object (object pointer as input, member variable value returned as output). I was wondering if using the setOnlyReadsMemory method on the native function objects could help LLVM generate optimized code (because it would then know the function has no side effects), and say, eliminating redundant calls to the same accessor function. Also, I would like to know what setDoesNotAccessMemory means exactly. Is it used to mean...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Molloy via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Vaivaswatha Nagaraj" <vn at compilertree.com> > Cc: "LLVM Dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 4:41:46 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Function attributes for LibFunc and its impact on GlobalsAA > >

...re my code is calling many native functions. >> Sometimes, these calls are simply calls to static "accessor" methods that >> read a variable in some class object (object pointer as input, member >> variable value returned as output). I was wondering if using the >> setOnlyReadsMemory method on the native function objects could help LLVM >> generate optimized code (because it would then know the function has no >> side >> effects), and say, eliminating redundant calls to the same accessor >> function. >> >> Also, I would like to know what setD...

...a situation where my code is calling many native functions. > Sometimes, these calls are simply calls to static "accessor" methods that > read a variable in some class object (object pointer as input, member > variable value returned as output). I was wondering if using the > setOnlyReadsMemory method on the native function objects could help LLVM > generate optimized code (because it would then know the function has no side > effects), and say, eliminating redundant calls to the same accessor > function. > > Also, I would like to know what setDoesNotAccessMemory means exac...

On 24/02/13 09:02, Duncan Sands wrote: > in order to do this, the optimizers need to know that the call to > @trace_integer does not modify the contents of @pt. Is it logically > possible for them to deduce this? If not, no optimizer can do what > you want. Yeah, I thought about that and then realized in this context they could not (it's an external function). Is there some