jdoerfert added a comment. In D79744#2040380 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79744#2040380>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D79744#2040348 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79744#2040348>, @jdoerfert wrote: > > > Drive by, I haven't read the entire history. > > > > In D79744#2040208 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79744#2040208>, @rjmccall > > wrote: > > > > > I don't understand why `noalias` is even a concern if the whole buffer > > > passed to the kernel is read-only. `noalias` is primarily about proving > > > non-interference, but if you can tell IR that the buffer is read-only, > > > that's a much more powerful statement. > > > > > > The problem is that it is a "per-pointer" attribute and not "per-object". > > Given two argument pointers, where one is marked `readonly`, may still > > alias. Similarly, an access to a global, indirect accesses, ... can write > > the "readonly" memory. > > > Oh, do we really not have a way to mark that memory is known to be truly > immutable for a time? That seems like a really bad limitation. It should be > doable with a custom alias analysis at least. `noalias` + `readone` on an argument basically implies immutable for the function scope. I think we have invariant intrinsics that could do the trick as well, though I'm not too familiar with those. I was eventually hoping for paired/scoped `llvm.assumes` which would allow `noalias` + `readnone` again. Then there is `invariant` which can be placed on a load instruction. Finally, TBAA has a "constant memory" tag (or something like that), but again it is a per-access thing. That are all the in-tree ways I can think of right now. Custom alias analysis can probably be used to some degree but except address spaces I'm unsure we have much that you can attach to a pointer and that "really sticks". >>> Regardless, if you do need `noalias`, you should be able to emit the same >>> IR that we'd emit if pointers to all the fields were assigned into >>> `restrict` local variables and then only those variables were subsequently >>> used. >> >> We are still debating the local restrict pointer support. Once we merge that >> in it should be usable here. > > I thought that was finished a few years ago; is it really not considered > usable yet? Or does "we" not just mean LLVM here? Yes, I meant "we" = LLVM here. Maybe we talk about different things. I was referring to local restrict qualified variables, e.g., `double * __restrict Ptr = ...`. The proposal to not just ignore the restrict (see https://godbolt.org/z/jLzjR3) came last year, it was a big one and progress unfortunately stalled (partly my fault). Now we are just about to see a second push to get it done. Is that what you meant too? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79744/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79744 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
