search for: uweigand

> On 2016-Jul-11, at 09:05, Ulrich Weigand <ulrich.weigand at de.ibm.com> wrote: > > uweigand accepted this revision. > uweigand added a comment. > This revision is now accepted and ready to land. > > I'll defer to your expertise on that. Patch looks good to me. > > I guess I'm not fully familiar with some of the C++ language details here. Would you mind explai...

...as,nico,olesalscheider,papin_g,pcc,predmond,rafael,rdivacky,redstar,rengolin,resistor,revane,ributzka,rikka,rkotler,rlytton,rmitton,rnk,row,rsandifo,rsmith,rtrieu,rudkx,ruiu,samsonov,sbaranga,sbenza,sdt,sepavloff,shuxin_yang,silvas,stephenwlin,stoklund,sylvestre,tasiraj,timurrrr,tnorthover,tstellar,uweigand,venkatra,vmedic,void,whunt,wpan,wschmidt,ygao,yjiang > > BUILD FAILED: failed compile > > sincerely, > -The Buildbot > > >

...l Message ----- > From: "Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>, "David Blaikie" > <dblaikie at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, uweigand at de.ibm.com, "Tom > Stellard" <thomas.stellard at amd.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 2:39:36 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form > I don't really mind, but the intermediate stage will not be very > nice: that a lot of...

...quot;Ehsan Amiri via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Tom Stellard" > <thomas.stellard at amd.com>, "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand at de.ibm.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 6:38:32 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: A change in InstCombine canonical form > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Mehdi Amini < mehdi.amini at apple.com > > wrote: > > > On Mar 22, 2016, at 4:15 PM, Ehsan Amiri via llv...

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2016, at 4:15 PM, Ehsan Amiri via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > James, > > I think (1) reduces the number of "do-not-see-through-bitcast" bugs that > we need to uncover and fix between now and the time that typeless pointer > is

I don't really mind, but the intermediate stage will not be very nice: that a lot of code / tests that needs to be written with bitcast, and all of that while they are deemed to disappear. The added value isn't clear to me considering the added work. I'm not sure it wouldn't add more work for all the cleanup required by the "typeless pointer", but I'm not sure