jeroen.dobbelaere added a comment.
In D74935#1909909 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74935#1909909>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> I would say that once we get modeling for indirect restrict we can adapt the
> lang ref accordingly. For now there is only have outer level restrict/noalias.
Why not try to get right now ? The first reason that you give for the change in
wording is
> '1. To match the restrict semantics when we lower it to noalias.'
Currently there is no mechanism to accurately describe nested restrict pointers
in LLVM-IR. imho, that means that
we should adapt the wording in a more specific way. Something like:
This guarantee only holds for memory locations that are *modified*, by any
means, during the execution the function.
+ Note that, just like C99 restrict, in this context, memory locations whose
content is used as a pointer value to modify a memory location,
+ are also considered to modify the former memory locations.
The attribute....
>
>
>>> 2. The extended `noalias` deduction D73428
>>> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D73428>.
[..]
>> That sounds good. Is there also a testcase (similar to D74935#1907100
>> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74935#1907100> or D74935#1907939
>> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74935#1907939> ) that explicitly checks that
>> 'noalias' is not deduced ?
>
> I'll add one :)
thanks !
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D74935/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D74935
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
