Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "ee61cd96".
Did you mean:
261cd96
2016 Dec 31
0
SCCP is not always correct in presence of undef (+ proposed fix)
...y, let's make it undef again for an
> iteration :)
>
In particular, this would have to fall *down* to overdefined, not go back
*up* to undef.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161230/ee61cd96/attachment.html>
2016 Dec 31
2
SCCP is not always correct in presence of undef (+ proposed fix)
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com
> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is there a case in your algorithm in which treating an
> >>> unknown as an undef will be a problem?
> >>>
> > Yes, if you