xbolva00 added a comment. In D125723#3547789 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125723#3547789>, @rnk wrote:
> I think it's fine to implement this, but I wanted to share some of the > motivation for the current state of things. In our experience, the majority > of uses of pragma optimize were to work around MSVC compiler bugs. So, > instead of honoring them, we felt it was best to ignore them with a warning > (`-Wignored-pragma-optimize`). Of course, that warning is typically disabled > in build systems of large projects, so our current behavior can still > surprise users. Implementing the feature is probably the most predictable and > least surprising thing Clang can do. > > Something we can't easily support for either GCC or MSVC attribute is > enabling optimizations for some functions in an -O0 build. Maybe it's now > possible to set up a full pass pipeline after semantic analysis is complete, > but it's not straightforward. You should consider what to do with that corner > case. What is a real motivation to have it in Clang as well? As you said, for MSVC, to work around bugs. You may say optimise(-Oz), but we have attribute minsize for that. Just to match MSVC? As shown https://reviews.llvm.org/D126984, things work a bit different in Clang vs MSVC/GCC so to justify this pragma, optimise attribute (and related (huge, imho) rework to move other attributes under OptimiseAttr, maybe rework of LLVM attributes), I would like to hear quite strong motivating words. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D125723/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D125723 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
