[PATCH] D97924: [LangRef] clarify the semantics of nocapture

[Juneyoung Lee via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

aqjune added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/LangRef.rst:2684
+and the stored bits can be read from the place by the caller after this call
+exits.
+
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> It is not the caller that needs to be able to read the bits, but any thread. This is a difference.
> 
> Also, I'm still not happy about "storing". We should at least clarify that there doesn't need to be a store instruction of any kind. The important point is that no bit is communicated from inside the function to the outside or another thread.
Hi,

> It is not the caller that needs to be able to read the bits, but any thread. This is a difference.

I think the second item in the text addresses this issue. :)

> Also, I'm still not happy about "storing". We should at least clarify that there doesn't need to be a store instruction of any kind.

I was thinking the information can be stored to either a register or a memory location which are encompassed in the word 'place'.
Do you have any suggestion for other word?


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/LangRef.rst:2735
+    BB_EXIT:
+      call void exit()
+      unreachable
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> exit is probably not perfect, maybe just set a flag.
I'll update this in the post-review commit.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D97924/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D97924