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

[Juneyoung Lee via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

aqjune added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/LangRef.rst:2570
+otherwise.
+
 .. _pointeraliasing:
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> 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"?
> 
Thanks.

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

Because it is important (IMO) and related to the lifetime. To be specific this patch, It answers whether two stack allocas with different lifetimes may have overlapping addresses.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

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

https://reviews.llvm.org/D94002