jdoerfert added a comment. In D81311#2088075 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311#2088075>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D81311#2087592 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311#2087592>, @jdoerfert wrote: > > > In D81311#2086326 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311#2086326>, @rjmccall > > wrote: > > > > > In D81311#2086227 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311#2086227>, @jdoerfert > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Do we allow `inmem` to be used for other purposes? I would assume the > > > > answer is yes, as we do not forbid it. > > > > > > > > > I don't know what else we might use it for off-hand, but yes, I think the > > > frontend could put this down on all value arguments that are actually > > > passed indirectly. > > > > > > Where does it say it is limited to indirectly passed arguments? > > > The argument does have to be a pointer. And passes aren't allowed to infer > this or it becomes useless for the original purpose. That is what I'm trying to get at. As of right now, I don't see any reason a pass could not add this, or a front-end for that matter, for any call, assuming they now it won't mess with the ABI for the target. We might want to add language to this end? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
