arsenm added a comment. In D81311#2088568 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311#2088568>, @jdoerfert wrote:
> 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? But why would you want to add it? The intent is to express the ABI 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
