lebedev.ri added a comment. In D84225#3303771 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84225#3303771>, @pengfei wrote:
> In D84225#3302142 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84225#3302142>, @rnk wrote: > >> I think LLVM already doesn't do some tail merging optimizations on inline >> asm, but allowing the use of the attribute is more principled, and will >> block more optimizations (CSE). > > IIRC, the initial requirment is to avoid the CSE like optimizations. We > usually use inline asm for sepcial proposes. We have to stop the merge some > time. Since the big hammer (`nomerge`) is already there i suppose this is fine, but given that there is little context in the original description, the wording makes it seem like it's being used to workaround something that may or may not be a bug in the first place. There isn't anything inherently wrong with merging inlineasm in general, if that does not break the constraints, especially since there's already a `sideeffect` keyword possible on the inlineasm. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D84225/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D84225 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
