search for: numaddedvalu

Hi, I encountered some bugs in Reassociate [1] where we are hitting some assertions: assert(!Duplicates.count(Factor) && "Shouldn't have two constant factors, missed a canonicalize"); assert(NumAddedValues > 1 && "Each occurrence should contribute a value”); My understanding is that these assertions enforce that when processing an expression tree, we expect that the nodes have already been canonicalized by Reassociate. I infer that there should be *one* canonicalization for a func...

...gt;> >> I encountered some bugs in Reassociate [1] where we are hitting some >> assertions: >> >> assert(!Duplicates.count(Factor) && >> "Shouldn't have two constant factors, missed a >> canonicalize"); >> assert(NumAddedValues > 1 && "Each occurrence should contribute a >> value”); >> >> My understanding is that these assertions enforce that when processing >> an expression tree, we expect that the nodes have already been >> canonicalized by Reassociate. >> >>...

...eassociate [1] where we are hitting some >>>> assertions: >>>> >>>> assert(!Duplicates.count(Factor) && >>>> "Shouldn't have two constant factors, missed a >>>> canonicalize"); >>>> assert(NumAddedValues > 1 && "Each occurrence should contribute a >>>> value”); >>>> >>>> My understanding is that these assertions enforce that when processing >>>> an expression tree, we expect that the nodes have already been >>>> cano...