[PATCH] D28053: Cleanup the handling of noinline function attributes, -fno-inline, -fno-inline-functions, -O0, and optnone.

[Chandler Carruth via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

chandlerc added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28053#629830, @mehdi_amini wrote:

> > It would be awesome if attribute sets were a bit more FileCheck friendly, but oh well.
>
> I've been wondering about that, what's the point of attribute sets in the textual IR?
>  I understand the idea for saving space in the Bitcode, but the IR does not have to use the same representation.


Will return to the actual patch review, but as an aside, I would *strongly* support going back to printing attributes in the canonical location in the function declaration / definition. It has huge advantages:

- Can FileCheck individual function's attributes rather than a set at a time
- Can place those checks after a CHECK-LABEL for the function name
- Can have a CHECK-LABEL for the function name, CHECKs for attributes *and* CHECKs for function body stuff, which today is extremely hard to combine into a single test.

Happy to help with this if you want to pursue it.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D28053