[PATCH] D65718: [LangRef] Document forward-progress requirement

[Johannes Doerfert via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jdoerfert added a comment.

In D65718#1619804 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65718#1619804>, @jdoerfert wrote:

> Somewhat related:
>  I was hoping that the following deduction will be valid:
>
>   If all instructions in the loop do not synchronize (see `nosync`) then the loop cannot be infinite.


If we say relaxed atomics do `sync` (as opposed to `nosync`), this should work with the concerns raised (and with recursion).
Which would allow us to say, if it does not `sync` it must be finite if forward progress is enforced^.

^ So this is orthogonal to the discussion if we should have an attribute enforcing forward progress (which I think makes sense).


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D65718/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D65718