search for: sadd_openinst

Hi Chris, Would it be better to split add into multiple opcodes instead of using SubclassData bits? Compare this: switch (I->getOpcode()) { case Instruction::Add: { switch (cast<Add>(I)->getOverflowBehavior()) { case AddInstruction::Wrapping: // ... case AddInstruction::UndefinedSigned: // ... case

...Wrapping: > // ... > case AddInstruction::UndefinedSigned: > // ... > case AddInstruction::UndefinedUnsigned: Sure, that is ugly. However, I think it would be much more common to look at these in "isa" flavored tests than switches: if (isa<SAdd_OpenInst>(X)) is much nicer than: if (BinaryOperator *BO = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(x)) if (BO->getOpcode() == blah::Add && BO->getOverflow() == blah::Undefined) However, we a) already suffer this just for Add, because we don't have an AddInst class, and b) don't car...

Edwin was asking about how we should handle PR3328, how we should make GEP respect -fwrapv etc. I wrote up some thoughts here if anyone is interested: http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/IntegerOverflow.txt -Chris