efriedma added a comment. > @efriedma I'm a bit confused. Could you propose some wording so I get a > feeling where you want to go?
Depending on which direction we go, either: - "Attributes on a function or callsite describe the behavior of the callee excluding the implied copy. For example, an optimization can infer readnone on a a byval argument if the callee does not access the copied memory." - "Attributes on a function or callsite describe the behavior of a call including the implied copy. For example, an optimization can never infer readnone on a call with a byval argument readnone because the implied copy reads memory. byval implies nocapture: there isn't any way to retrieve the original address in the callee." I don't really care which we choose, we can easily model it either way. But I think we need to choose one or the other. Making attributes describe different things on each side of the call is much worse than either of those alternatives; it confuses what it means for a function or callsite to have an attribute. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79636/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79636 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
