[LLVMdev] Parallel Loop Metadata

[Pekka Jääskeläinen]

On 02/08/2013 11:56 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> Or do we require the instrumentation pass, to reason about the
> llvm.loop.parallel data and remove it in case it gets invalidated?

It's against the metadata guidelines.

> Or can we just assume that such an instrumentation pass can or will
> never exist?

I think it's safe to say we can't.

One additional motivational point I want to make is that the llvm.mem
metadata style might become useful for other things too. Cases like
annotating the pointer with its original function context to
preserve "restricted pointer" (noalias) information across function
call inlines, etc.

-- 
Pekka