Prazek marked an inline comment as done. Prazek added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11859#225404, @rjmccall wrote:
> 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. It just wasn't in our plans. Main target was to devirtualize function calls much better, and I think that finishing the work from proposed paper will be much more valuable. http://reviews.llvm.org/D11859 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
