search for: 4577ff6c

..._________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180306/4577ff6c/attachment.html>

I need to review the last thread about undef/poison (or someone who knows current status of that can reply), but this would seem to come down to whether undef applies to the entire value or the individual bits? Ie, in your example the sign bit will never be set unless all of the exponent bits are also set. Each bit individually is unknown, but taken together we know that some sequences are

On 05.03.2018 19:27, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev wrote: > 3. fadd C, undef --> undef (where C is not NaN or Inf) > In the general constant case, the result could be anything as long as > constant operand C is not NaN or Inf. If C is the largest finite positive number, then (fadd C, X) cannot be a finite negative number. So doesn't folding (fadd C, undef) --> undef break the