arsenm added a comment. In D69498#1731265 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69498#1731265>, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> In D69498#1727650 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69498#1727650>, @dexonsmith > wrote: > > > In D69498#1723606 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69498#1723606>, @rjmccall > > wrote: > > > > > Perhaps there should be a global metadata, or something in the > > > increasingly-misnamed "data layout" string, which says that convergence > > > is meaningful, and we should only add the attribute in > > > appropriately-annotated modules? > > > > > > Just wanted to resurface these alternatives from John. Given that some > > targets want a fundamentally different default from what most frontends > > expect, I think we ought to find some way to encode the difference. > > > Just thought about a slight variation on this: what about adding a flag on > the datalayout (or a module flag) but not use it in the > transformations/analyses, instead use it only when creating Function by > always setting the `convergent` attribute when the flag is present? This > would require to always have a Module passed to the Function constructor > though (the C API already does, we would just need to update the C++ users). > > So creating a Function in a Module with this flag would have the convergent > attribute set on creation (can be unset explicitly). This sounds almost too low level. The bitcode loading of a function shouldn’t be adding attributes to non-intrinsics, otherwise it’s changing the meaning of the program and not preserving the input CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69498/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69498 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
