rjmccall added a comment. In D82317#2200964 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82317#2200964>, @guiand wrote:
> In D82317#2200789 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82317#2200789>, @rjmccall wrote: > >> Are you seriously adding an attribute to literally every argument and return >> value? Why is this the right representation? > > This adds an attribute to every argument and return value where the language > rules denote it cannot be undef (which is ideally in most places, but > definitely not everywhere). Okay, so it's just 90% of arguments and return values. Can you link the discussion? I seem to have completely missed this. I agree that a positive attribute seems like the right polarity in the abstract, and since undef-ness is a core static property in LLVM, it probably does need to be fairly invasive. It's just unfortunate for a couple of reasons: first, this is going to be quite disruptive for downstream users and forks; second, it's yet another contribution towards the giant pile of attributes that seem to have become necessary to do any work in LLVM; and third, it's progress towards working around the problems with `undef` rather than towards replacing it entirely with a proper indeterminate-but-consistent abstraction, which is what's been badly needed for years. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82317/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82317 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
