jdoerfert added a comment. In D74935#1887960 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74935#1887960>, @nhaehnle wrote:
> In D74935#1887245 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74935#1887245>, @efriedma wrote: > > > In D74935#1886020 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74935#1886020>, @nhaehnle > > wrote: > > > > > I find this phrasing pretty confusing. How about the following: > > > > > > > This indicates that objects accessed via pointer values based on the > > > > argument or return value are not **modified**, during the execution of > > > > the function, via pointer values not based on the argument or return > > > > value. [...] > > > > > > This isn't equivalent. If the memory location is modified, we want to > > forbid both reads and writes that aren't based on the noalias pointer. > > > Oh I see. So another way to put this is: > > - If an object is accessed via a pointer based on the noalias argument, then > it cannot be modified via other pointer values. > - If an object is modified via a pointer based on the noalias argument, then > it cannot be accessed via other pointer values in any way. > > Correct? I think it's useful to spell it out like this, because it makes > the alias implications clearer (at least to me). I think it might make sense to actually add a page with examples and more details. I don't have a strong opinion on the wording for this short paragraph though. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74935/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74935 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
