search for: 3363f529

Here's an idea for a slightly unusual framework for poison semantics: we do it in two steps -- 1. for every bit in the program, we define a second "shadow bit", is-poison. We define the semantics of LLVM IR using this is-poison relation. So, for instance, we could say if there is a bit 'b'in address 'a' such that if is-poison['b'], then "store X to

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > But > (Poison > INT_MAX) <=> poison > contradicts > (X > INT_MAX) <=> false > > and I don't think you want to abandon the second rule just because x might be poison. Maybe we could define poison in such a way that it is safe to pretend it "is" false, as per our