search for: semilattice

> > > It seems to me that there are two ways of thinking about this: either the > value of a pointer in IR is richer than its bit sequence, in which case > replacing p1 with p0 in a block predicated by p0 == p1 is an incorrect > transformation if you cannot prove that one pointer was based on the other, > Which would be a non-starter just from the cost of doing so, not to

...> - allow for algebraically equivalent transformations that may > dramatically > change results in floating point. (e.g. reassociation) > [...] > Not all combinations make sense (e.g. 'A' pretty much implies all other > flags). > > Basically, I have the below semilattice of sensible relations: > A > S > I > N > A > F > Meaning that 'A' implies all the others, 'S' implies 'I' and 'N', etc. > Why does it make sense for S to imply I and N? GCC's -fno-signed-zeros flag doesn't seem to imply -ffinite-m...

...nt. (e.g. reassociation) Throughout I'll refer to these options in their short-hand, e.g. 'A'. Internally, these flags are to reside in SubclassData. ====== Question: Not all combinations make sense (e.g. 'A' pretty much implies all other flags). Basically, I have the below semilattice of sensible relations: A > S > I > N A > F Meaning that 'A' implies all the others, 'S' implies 'I' and 'N', etc. It might make sense to change the S, I, and N options to be some kind of finite option with levels 3, 2, and 1 respectively. F and A cou...