yln added a comment. @lebedev.ri Thanks for the clarifications! I will split this up into multiple patches once we settled on a design.
In D56624#1369635 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56624#1369635>, @vsk wrote: > What are the advantages of a generalized expect_noreturn attribute, vs. a > narrower attribute or intrinsic? The expect_noreturn semantics do not provide > strong guarantees, and are not really orthogonal from the pre-existing cold > attribute. @eugenis Do you want to chime in here? I think they convey different meanings even if their treatment by the optimizer is similar. The `cold` attribute says nothing about whether or not a function is expected to return. > In particular, expect_noreturn doesn't even seem strong enough to allow ASan > to unpoison its stack. I am not sure I understand this part. Can you elaborate? For context: ``cold`` This attribute indicates that this function is rarely called. When computing edge weights, basic blocks post-dominated by a cold function call are also considered to be cold; and, thus, given low weight. ``noreturn`` This function attribute indicates that the function never returns normally. This produces undefined behavior at runtime if the function ever does dynamically return. ``expect_noreturn`` This function attribute indicates that the function is unlikely to return normally, but that it is still allowed to do so. This is useful in cases for which ``noreturn`` is too strong a guarantee. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56624/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56624 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
