reames added a comment. In D110745#3035975 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D110745#3035975>, @nikic wrote:
> Sorry, but the fact that there is still no way to opt-in to the old behavior > is still a blocker from my side. If we can't use `dereferenceable + nofree` > arguments for that purpose, then we need to provide a different way to do > that. Like `dereferenceable + really_nofree`. It looks like the current > implementation doesn't even accept the `dereferenceable + nofree + noalias` > case originally proposed (which is pretty bad from a design perspective, but > would at least work fairly well for rustc in practice). I don't think that > our current analysis capabilities are sufficient to land this change at this > time. @nikic Do you have any specific examples of where this causes a workload to regress? At this point, I really need something specific as opposed to a general concern. We're at the point where perfection is very much the enemy of the good here. As noted, I've already spent a lot of time trying to minimize impact. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D110745/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D110745 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
