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
>