Mordante added a comment. In D86559#2243575 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86559#2243575>, @staffantj wrote:
> As one of the SG14 industry members driving this, I'm firmly in the camp that > this is what we're expecting. In the first case the 1/2 case are "neutral". > This is a very explicit, and local, marker. Anything else makes it so vague > as to be unusable for fine tuned code. Thanks for your interest and affirming this looks like the right path to take. > I should also make the point that we are not talking about a feature that is > expected, or indeed should be, used by anyone other than someone with an > exceedingly good understanding of what is going on. This is not a "teach > everyone about it, it's safe" feature. It's there to produce a very > fine-grained control in those cases where it really matters, and where > profiling-guided optimizations would produce exactly the wrong result. Using > this feature should be an automatic "is this needed" question in a code > review. It is needed sometimes, just rarely. I think it's hard to predict how the feature will be used. For example if a well known C++ gives a presentation at a conference about the attributes it might be more used. Even though as humans we're bad at guessing the performance bottleneck in our code I still think there are cases where the attribute can be used without testing. For example when writing a cache in an application you can mark the cache-hit to be more likely. If that isn't the case there's no reason for adding a cache. (Of course it would still be wise to measure.) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D86559/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D86559 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
