search for: u6zqob

..., I was looking into how the global optimization pass fares against things like what's reported in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44676 Looking at this, I think it would be pretty trivial to optimize that down given that there are already threading assumptions made: https://godbolt.org/z/u6ZqoB Is this something I can look into? Another thing is that currently *all* external calls break this optimization, including calls to intrinsics that probably shouldn't: https://godbolt.org/z/pK7Cew Maybe add some sort of way (i.e. an attribute) to mark that a call can be optimized through in thi...

...ined. I would start looking at the debug generated by the code parts touched here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66157 > > Looking at this, I think it would be pretty trivial to optimize that > > down given that there are already threading assumptions made: > > https://godbolt.org/z/u6ZqoB Optimizing more aggressively based on forward process guarantees will get us in more trouble than we are already in. I don't have the link handy but as far as I remember the proposed solution was to have a forward process guarantee function attribute. I would recommend we look into that first...

...code parts touched here: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D66157 > > > > > > > > Looking at this, I think it would be pretty trivial to optimize that > > > > down given that there are already threading assumptions made: > > > > https://godbolt.org/z/u6ZqoB > > > > Optimizing more aggressively based on forward process guarantees will > > get us in more trouble than we are already in. I don't have the link > > handy but as far as I remember the proposed solution was to have a > > forward process guarantee function attr...

...code parts touched here: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D66157 > > > > > > > > Looking at this, I think it would be pretty trivial to optimize that > > > > down given that there are already threading assumptions made: > > > > https://godbolt.org/z/u6ZqoB > > > > Optimizing more aggressively based on forward process guarantees will > > get us in more trouble than we are already in. I don't have the link > > handy but as far as I remember the proposed solution was to have a > > forward process guarantee function attr...