In D86233#2256563, @jdoerfert wrote:

In D86233#2256076, @RalfJung wrote:

Shouldn't it be "maynotprogress" (or "maybenoprogress" or so)? *Every* function *may* progress, but only those with this marker are also allowed to not "make progress".

The way to read it is:
Every function *mustmakeprogress* unless it has the *mayprogress* attribute.

So "may" is either they do or they don't, both are fine.
And, "must" means they have to or UB.

Shouldn't it be "maynotprogress" (or "maybenoprogress" or so)? *Every* function *may* progress, but only those with this marker are also allowed to not "make progress".

Changed name from noprogress to mayprogress for clarity.

I don't look at it as added or removed, for me it is a boolean flag, with a default that requires progress. It is more like nobuiltin, noduplicate, nomerge, returns_twice, .... The difference is that I don't see this being deduced. It is just a description of the input semantics, not a property we derive from the code (to describe the code). Unclear if the view makes a difference, let me know what u think :)

It depends on how you look at it:
From the perspective of optimizations we can do, sure absence is the one that enables more.
From the perspective of source behavior, it just distinguishes between two alternatives, so both option w/ and w/o flag have the same information value.

This attribute indicates that the function is guaranteed to not make progress

It isn't contradiction, but about whether noprogress brings useful information or not, though.

No happens-before rule is needed for sequential programs. The compiled program must exhibit all observable events in the same order as the source program.

Yes, C++ makes infinite loops UB (and C, under some conditions). This PR is about making LLVM support languages like JavaScript or Rust that do not have such UB.

I don't know what this statement is based on.

If there are no accesses to the variable, there are no calls of the function. Throwing away the loop is valid, analysis of whether it is finite is not required.

Either should do the trick after a while given that all optimizations need to preserve/handle attribute already, you cannot just drop them and so noprogress should be sufficient.

I am going solely off the description here as I am not familiar with LLVM internals. Looking forward to the LangRef update. :)

A fence is not an atomic operation on its own in C++. See http://eel.is/c++draft/atomics.fences where it says "is a synchronization operation *if* [...]".

Does this need a side effect? Per the current definition, no. Per C++, yes.

I cannot land commits myself, could you help with that?

I fixed the typo.

Fix typo.

Please make sure you have llvm-commits added as a subscriber when creating patches in the future