Sirraide wrote: > This feature is a bit more complicated than it appears at first. LLVM will > often pessimize code in the presence of assumptions and that's the exact > opposite of what users will expect from this feature.
Yeah, I’ve since looked into the discussions on that topic. > that seemed to have pretty strong support for dropping llvm.assume > annotations due to how problematic they are in practice. Yeah, imo that seems like the right approach to me at least since `@llvm.assume` being a pessimisation in some cases seems like something the backend should be handling, not the frontend, but that’s just my opinion. > @Sirraide, would you be comfortable if you, @erichkeane, and I co-authored > an RFC to the community? Sure, I’d be happy to help with that as best I can. An RFC makes sense imo seeing as this really impacts more parts of LLVM than just Clang. > (I'm sorry to add the extra layer of work on what would otherwise seem like a > straightforward PR, this is a bit of an unusual situation.) No problem. Getting this figured out properly does seem like the right approach here. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81014 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
