Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "visitsub".
Did you mean:
visits
2014 Jun 25
2
[LLVMdev] Question Regarding Sign-Overflow
...ED/figments/cpp/PointerTo/start-with-ll/llvm/class-Value.cc&ct=xref_jump_to_def&cl=GROK&l=3&gsn=*>V <https://cs.corp.google.com/#piper///depot/google3/third_party/llvm/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAddSub.cpp&ct=xref_usages&gs=cpp:llvm::class-InstCombiner::visitSub(llvm::BinaryOperator%2520&)::V at google3/third_party/llvm/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineAddSub.cpp:48204%257Cdef&l=1470&gsn=V> = dyn_castNegVal <https://cs.corp.google.com/#piper///depot/google3/third_party/llvm/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstructionCombining.cp...
2016 Sep 20
2
Inferring nsw/nuw flags for increment/decrement based on relational comparisons
...? Alternatively they could be put behind -O3 i.e. the
ExpensiveCombines variable Sanjay pointed out.
> 2. InstCombiner::visitAdd only calls into ValueTracking for the
> unsigned case, i.e. computeOverflowForUnsignedAdd. There are no
> computeOverflowFor*Sub functions that InstCombiner::visitSub even
> could make use of. Instead, InstCombiner has its own
> WillNotOverflow{S,UnS}igned{Add,Sub} functions. The relationship
> between these and the computeOverflow* functions is unclear to me.
> They look like they overlap to an extent.
Is some refactoring warranted here or does...