search for: rewriteexprtree

Hi all, I have a very simple test case (thanks to bugpoint) that hit an assert in reassociate. (the assert is (C->getType()->isIntOrIntVectorTy() && "Cannot NEG a nonintegral value!"), function getNeg) The function is taking a Constant as argument, but the assert does not expect an undef. I’m not sure whose responsibility is it to handle that (caller?). Do we have to

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I presume you mean, instead of assigning function arguments distinct ranks > (http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/Reassociate_8cpp_source.html#l00282), we > should group function arguments in favor of existing pairings. Existing = pairings reassociate already chose before *not* existing

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:16 AM Mark Heffernan <meheff at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> It is not clear to me at all that preventing the merging is the right >> solution. There are a large number of analysis, including alias analysis, >> and optimizations that use GetUnderlyingObject, and