Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "l978".
Did you mean:
978
2015 Apr 20
3
[LLVMdev] Why are imm shifts where imm >= width type eliminated entirely?
...i16 %shr, i16* @y
>
> will get transformed into:
> store i16 undef, i16* @y
>
> Then we will delete the store of undef using the following:
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineLoadStoreAlloca.cpp?revision=234601&view=markup#l978
>
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next pa...
2015 Apr 20
3
[LLVMdev] Why are imm shifts where imm >= width type eliminated entirely?
For example:
unsigned int x, y;
void foo()
{
y = x >> 129;
}
Where int is a 16bit type, the .ll is producing only 'ret void' at O3. At
O0 the .ll looks fine but then llc gets rid of it an simply returns.
I'm just curious what the reasoning is for this? It isn't trying to set y
to anything at all.
Thanks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was