search for: 064714

...o:Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com <mailto:Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>> wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> It was a comment by Tim that first made me aware of it (see <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2013-August/064714.html>http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2013-August/064714.html <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2013-August/064714.html> but I think he commented on one of my patches before that). >> >> >> I asked about it on llvm-dev a couple weeks later (http://lists...

...anks, > > -Quentin > > > > On Jan 11, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > It was a comment by Tim that first made me aware of it (see > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2013-August/064714.html but I > think he commented on one of my patches before that). > > > > I asked about it on llvm-dev a couple weeks later ( > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2013-August/064919.html) > highlighting the contradiction and was told that 'no-op cast' referred to...

...> -Quentin > > On Jan 11, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com <mailto:Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > It was a comment by Tim that first made me aware of it (see http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2013-August/064714.html <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2013-August/064714.html> but I think he commented on one of my patches before that). > > I asked about it on llvm-dev a couple weeks later (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2013-August/064919.html <http://lists.llvm.org/piperma...

...p between the LLVM-IR and the backend if we do. Thanks, -Quentin > On Jan 11, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > It was a comment by Tim that first made me aware of it (see http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2013-August/064714.html <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2013-August/064714.html> but I think he commented on one of my patches before that). > > I asked about it on llvm-dev a couple weeks later (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2013-August/064919.html <http://lists.llvm.org/piperma...

Hi Daniel, I had a quick look at the language reference for bitcast and I have a different reading than what you were pointing out. Indeed, my take away is: "It is always a no-op cast because no bits change with this conversion." In other words, deleting all bitcast instructions should be fine. My understanding of the quote you’ve highlighted is that it tells C programmers that this