Meinersbur added a comment. LGTM, since it continues current practice. `optnone` will always be the more annoying.
In D77058#1964714 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77058#1964714>, @fhahn wrote: > 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. My question was the other way around: Do we need something like `-xclang -disable-fno-unroll-loops-metadata`. I documented for Polly <http://polly.llvm.org/docs/UsingPollyWithClang.html#isolate-the-polly-passes> how to get the IR for further processing. There is `clang -Xclang -disable-O0-optnone` and another is `clang -O1 -Xclang -disable-llvm-passes`. Both avoid the optnone attribute, but will yield different results with `-fno-unroll-loops`. Which is the 'correct' way? 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
