fhahn added a comment. In D77058#1964427 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77058#1964427>, @Meinersbur wrote:
> Note that loop-metadata is best-effort only and may be forgotten in the > optimization pipeline. Agreed, that can be a potential issue (I tried to note that in the description), but I think that's pretty much the same issue we have with the loop related pragmas. Ideally there would be even more incentive now to fix the offending transforms. > Do we also need an equivalent to `-Xclang -disable-O0-optnone`? > > Personally, I don't like to the `optnone` approach: There have been many post > on llvm-dev using `clang -emit-llvm` and being surprised that `opt` has no > effect. Ah yes, optnone is a common pitfall :( IIUC we don't need a patch similar like this one for optnone, as it already gets added to the function attributes (for -O0) and has an option to disable adding it (-Xclang -disable-O0-optnone) on a per-TU basis. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77058/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77058 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
