rjmccall added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11859#225384, @Prazek wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11859#225025, @rjmccall wrote: > > > Mostly LGTM. Are you going to emit assumptions for vbptrs in a separate > > patch? > > > I wasn't planning to. I am focusing now on upgrading GVN for using new > invariant.barrier metadata. I won't argue with prioritizing Itanium over MS work, if that's your motivation, because that's obviously your call to make, and certainly that's how I would weigh things if I were doing this work. If you're interested in both, though, I would guess that vbptr assumptions would be particularly valuable — constructing objects and immediately converting them to a base class is pretty common in a lot of idioms. http://reviews.llvm.org/D11859 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
