Displaying 1 result from an estimated 1 matches for "with_overflow".
Did you mean:
_with_overflow
2015 Mar 27
2
[LLVMdev] `llvm.$op.with.overflow`, InstCombine and ScalarEvolution
> If we don't care about trying to optimize out overflow checks in
> InstCombine, I'd go with moving the complexity to CGP.
I think instcombine should optimize out overflow checks (as it does
today) without introducing _with_overflow calls. Are there reasons
why such an approach would not work?
> However, I think
> InstCombine is doing the right thing here by forming these.
I don't quite agree with you on this -- by materializing these
intrinsics InstCombine is making every pass that runs after it less
effective....