gchatelet added a comment. Thx for the summary @tejohnson.
In D61634#1808265 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61634#1808265>, @tejohnson wrote: > >> 3. Propagate/merge the `no-builtin` IR attribute for LTO by "updating > >> `AttributeFuncs::areInlineCompatible` and/or > >> `AttributeFuncs::mergeAttributesForInlining` and adding a new MergeRule in > >> `include/llvm/IR/Attributes.td` and writing a function like > >> `adjustCallerStackProbeSize`." > > > > This one isn't about LTO, but rather the inliner. You could have different > > functions in the same module even without LTO that have incompatible > > no-builtin attributes. There isn't any propagation required for LTO. > > Not done yet - I can work on this. That would be great! > > >> >> >>> 4. Get inspiration from `TargetTransformInfo` to get `TargetLibraryInfo` on >>> a per function basis for all passes and respect the IR attribute. > > Done (D67923 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67923> was the last patch in the > series to enable this, committed at 878ab6df033d > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG878ab6df033d44430939c02075ee00800995dc3b>). > > I'm not quite sure where D71710 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71710> > ([instrinsics] Add @llvm.memcpy.inline instrinsics) fits in to the above list. I believe it does. > Anything else missing? Yes when the intrinsic is in we need a way to access it from C++ so a Clang builtin is necessary. I'll take care of it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61634/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61634 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
