search for: subeax

> On Jun 27, 2017, at 2:44 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 6/27/2017 4:35 PM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev wrote: >> Yeah I was reading this as “only the non-touched part are dead”, and that’s what I’d like to see in the representation longer. Obviously, the register is not dead as a whole here :) > > I think that having

...> in play you can express more situations. Like for example: > > > > %rax<dead>, %eax = ... > > > > could mean the instruction writes the full rax register but we are only > gonna read eax later. > > That sounds like an alias to: > %rax<def-undef, subeax> = … > > Which sounds fine. Though I am not suggesting we want to move to this > dead model for such situation. > > > That said I am not sure whether we actually need it, and if llvm works that > way today. Given how subtle all of this is there is also a high danger that w...

...le: >>>> >>>> %rax<dead>, %eax = ... >>>> >>>> could mean the instruction writes the full rax register but we are only >>> gonna read eax later. >>> >>> That sounds like an alias to: >>> %rax<def-undef, subeax> = … >>> >>> Which sounds fine. Though I am not suggesting we want to move to this >>> dead model for such situation. >>> >>>> That said I am not sure whether we actually need it, and if llvm works that >>> way today. Given how subtle al...