aqjune added a comment.
In D90275#2371813 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90275#2371813>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> As noted by the GCC docs, it doesn't mean anything on a definition so that
> you can safely merge TUs. I want us to forbid `leaf` on IR function
> definitions for that reason, it would not mean anything and be only confusing.
Okay, I see.
I agree that having this attribute at definitions is slightly dangerous..!
But I am not still 100% sure about the safety of merging... I see that it is
okay when `leaf` is on a definition, but what about declaration?
// a.ll
define void f1() { f2(); }
define void g() { x = 3; }
// b.ll
define void f2() { leaf(); }
declare leaf void @leaf() ; If @leaf() was actually calling @g(), is merging
a.ll and b.ll valid?
> It is not a memory thing. However, the "almost" matching memory property is
> called `inaccesiblememonly` so that is why I wanted to call this
> `inaccessiblecodeonly`.
Eh, actually my question was more like a question to gcc people about why
`leaf` was defined that way. Maybe my question is not relevant in this thread.
Thank you for answering though.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90275/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90275
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
