[PATCH] D100353: Support optnone in SCCP

Thu Apr 15 15:54:54 PDT 2021

dblaikie added a comment.

In D100353#2688790 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100353#2688790>, @fhahn wrote:

> I think this makes sense , but I don't think this behavior is clear for the current definition of `optnone`, which says `.... with the exception of interprocedural optimization passes.`. Do you think it would be worth to spell this out in a clearer way? Should all IPOs ignore `optnone` functions?

In D100353#2692812 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100353#2692812>, @probinson wrote:

> IIRC, the exception for IPOs was because we hadn't thought too much about what optnone ought to mean in that context--specifically, when two functions would interact in an IPO-ish way, but one function has optnone and  the other doesn't.
>
> I think it's fine to respecify optnone in a way that lets it factor into IPO decisions while preserving the intent of optnone (which is that we should leave them alone as much as possible).  But, we should actually respecify it that way; then IPOs that don't conform become bugs/TODOs that need taking care of.

Yep, makes sense to me - added LangRef update to this patch (can split it out if folks think that'd be best).

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D100353/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D100353