[llvm-dev] Memory scope proposal

[Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev]

Hi Mehdi,

Mehdi Amini wrote:
 > I’m not sure, but isn’t the synchscope id (or domains as you seem to
 > call it) intended to change which instruction would be actually

FYI, I don't know what the right term for this is.  :)

 > codegen?
 >
 > In which case I’m not sure dropping it is ever a good idea, even
 > when it does not affect correctness it would dramatically affect
 > performance.

Sure, that is a good reason to avoid a metadata based approach.  I was
just unconvinced by the current argument of (at least on the commit
message) "it can't be done", because I think a scheme modeled after
the !tbaa style metadata scheme has a chance of working.  If the
fundamental reason why we want a non-MD scheme is something other than
"it can't be done", I'm fine with that.

-- Sanjoy