vsapsai added a comment.
In D58147#1398094 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58147#1398094>, @rjmccall wrote:
> Okay. Is it acceptable for the annotation to simply disappear in this case?
> I don't really understand the purposes of annotations well enough to judge.
Looks like it is acceptable. The main justification for this behavior is that
it is already happening for
return;
int after_return = __builtin_annotation(0, "annotation");
so I think it is correct to have the same IR for
return;
int after_return __attribute__((annotate("annotation"))) = 0;
Also looks like in the code we don't really use this intrinsic. And according
to the documentation
> This intrinsic allows annotation of local variables with arbitrary
> strings. This can be useful for special purpose optimizations that want
> to look for these annotations. These have no other defined use; they are
> ignored by code generation and optimization.
I think for the special purpose optimizations it would be more convenient not
to know about the code after return instead of detecting it and ignoring
explicitly.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58147/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58147
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
