[PATCH] D94002: [LangRef] Make lifetime intrinsic's semantics consistent with StackColoring's comment

[Johannes Doerfert via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jdoerfert added a comment.

I left some comments.

I think I will reply to the email thread because I have more thoughts on this by now.



================
Comment at: llvm/docs/LangRef.rst:2570
+otherwise.
+
 .. _pointeraliasing:
----------------
Is "preserved" the right word here? Maybe "reserved"?

---

_ "allocation instruction"
+ "allocation value"

or something else because globals are not instructions.

---

_ "returns"
+ "return"

---

_ "free-like commands" 
+ instructions that deallocate the object or impact it's lifetime

---

Lifetime markers, as of now, still talk about memory regions, not objects. I think that can be changed but should be kept in mind.

---

Why the "representable in integers" part, and "integral address"?



Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D94002/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D94002