search for: 1068949

Displaying 1 result from an estimated 1 matches for "1068949".

Did you mean: 1064949
2019 May 16
2
Delinearization validity checks in DependenceAnalysis
Hello Under the proviso that it's been a while since I looked into any of these things... On 05/15, Bardia Mahjour via llvm-dev wrote: > I also get correct results for my example (for a 64-bit target) if the upper > bounds are changed to unsigned. The reason is simply because clang zero-extends > `m` for address calculations but sign-extends it for the loop upper bound. This >