jeroen.dobbelaere added a comment. In D74935#1909909 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74935#1909909>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> I would say that once we get modeling for indirect restrict we can adapt the > lang ref accordingly. For now there is only have outer level restrict/noalias. Why not try to get right now ? The first reason that you give for the change in wording is > '1. To match the restrict semantics when we lower it to noalias.' Currently there is no mechanism to accurately describe nested restrict pointers in LLVM-IR. imho, that means that we should adapt the wording in a more specific way. Something like: This guarantee only holds for memory locations that are *modified*, by any means, during the execution the function. + Note that, just like C99 restrict, in this context, memory locations whose content is used as a pointer value to modify a memory location, + are also considered to modify the former memory locations. The attribute.... > > >>> 2. The extended `noalias` deduction D73428 >>> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D73428>. [..] >> That sounds good. Is there also a testcase (similar to D74935#1907100 >> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74935#1907100> or D74935#1907939 >> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74935#1907939> ) that explicitly checks that >> 'noalias' is not deduced ? > > I'll add one :) thanks ! 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