fhahn added reviewers: rjmccall, aaron.ballman, erichkeane. fhahn added a comment.
Thanks for putting up the patch! I think the code here and D94366 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94366> could be simplified if we would introduce 2 codegen options to distinguish the differences between C and C++: - `functions-must-progress=true/false`: C++ behavior >= c++11; all threads must make forward progress, we should be able to mark all functions as `mustprogress` and there should be no need to mark the individual loops as `mustprogress`. - `loops-must-progress=all/none/c11`: `all` -> all loops are marked `mustprogress`, `none` -> no loops are marked, `c11` -> all loops that do not match the C11 escape hatch are marked `mustprogress`. Now - `c++11` and above, `functions-must-progress=true`, `loops-must-progress=none`, - `c11` and above `functions-must-progress=false`, `loops-must-progress=c11`, - `-ffinite-loops` -> `loops-must-progress=all`, - `-fnofinite-loops` -> , `functions-must-progress=false`, `loops-must-progress=false` In CodeGen, we always add `mustprogress` to functions exactly if `functions-must-progress=true`. For loops, we could have a helper `shouldMarkLoopAsMustProgress(bool C11Exception)`, which returns true depending on `loops-must-progress` and `C11Exceptions`, which the caller sets to true if the loop condition is one that is allowed for infinite loops in `C11`. This should allow us to remove `CGF::FnIsMustProgress` and the code to update it; now either all functions have `mustprogress` or none have, depending on `functions-must-progress`. We still need `CGLoopInfo::MustProgress`, but we only need to update it depending on `loops-must-progress`, I think this would overall simplify the handling in `Codegen`, but it's very possible that I am missing something from earlier discussions. I am also adding a few additional people who may have additional thought. One things that's slightly odd with the proposal is that for C++, `loops-must-progress` would be `none`, which has the potential to be a bit confusing. We could make this clear in the documentation or just set it to `all`, although as I mentioned in the beginning, that should not really be necessary. It might be helpful/necessary if loops inlined from C++ function inside C functions should keep their `mustprogress` property. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ClangCommandLineReference.rst:2290 + +Assume that all loops terminate or never assume that they do. This takes precedence over the language standard. + ---------------- It looks like the options are mostly ordered. Could you move it to the right place? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D94367/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D94367 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
