search for: willprogress

...require languages like Rust to add spurious side-effects to avoid this. > I'm afraid I don't have the full history of these discussions, but is > there really a _good_ reason for doing so? It would feel more natural > to have no progress requirement by default and add a "willprogress" > attribute to indicate that the so annotated function will eventually > make progress (whatever that means, which is the other issue I have > with this :)) We can certainly turn everything around. Though, that would basically regress our current IR and the "normal" C/C...

...C/C++ loop, unsure if that is a good idea. >>  > I'm afraid I don't have the full history of these discussions, but is >>  > there really a _good_ reason for doing so? It would feel more natural >>  > to have no progress requirement by default and add a "willprogress" >>  > attribute to indicate that the so annotated function will eventually >>  > make progress (whatever that means, which is the other issue I have >>  > with this :)) >> >> We can certainly turn everything around. Though, that would basically &gt...

On 9/4/20 7:39 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: > > On 9/4/20 6:31 PM, Atmn Patel via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> We’ve prepared a new function attribute `maynotprogress` and loop >> metadata `llvm.loop.mustprogress` in order to better formalize the way >> LLVM deals with infinite loops without observable side-effects. This >> is deeply