similar to: Ordered probit using clm2

David, -fsanitize=undefined sounds great, but is not quite what I want. I recently ran into a problem with "CodeGen/MachineSink.cpp” [*], for a target that has to expand Select into control flow. The original IR had two select in a row that were based on the same condition, so the CMP that sets the FLAGS reg in the second select was MCSE’ed to the earlier CMP in the first

Dave, The way I see it there should be just one pass that implements deleting UB (maybe it would come to be called UBCE), and that one pass should have a command line option simply for the reason than all passes should have one. Peter Lawrence. > On Jul 26, 2017, at 10:02 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:23 PM

Dave, Dead code elimination is generally done in a pass called dead code elimination, Can you give concrete examples why the same would not be true for UB code elimination ? Yes, speculatively hoisting code requires it to be UB-free, but that has nothing to do with UBCE deleting entire blocks of code because of the existence of UB. The former requires an analysis proving UB-absense, the

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:40 AM Peter Lawrence <peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Dave, > Dead code elimination is generally done in a pass called dead > code elimination, > Can you give concrete examples why the same would not be true for UB code > elimination ? > I haven't actually looked at how optimizations on the basis of the code being UB-free

> On Jul 21, 2017, at 10:55 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2017-07-21 22:44 GMT-07:00 Peter Lawrence <peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net <mailto:peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net>>: > Mehdi, > Hal’s transformation only kicks in in the *presence* of UB > > No, sorry I entirely disagree with this assertion: I believe we

--- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bios.c | 47 ++++++++++++++----------------- 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bios.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bios.c index 5eec5ed..04ac564 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bios.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bios.c @@ -181,43 +181,42 @@ struct methods { const char

I am out of the office on vacation through July 20th, 2011. I am checking email, and will get back to you as soon as I can. For urgent matters, contact: Angie Besse for Oracle Labs, M&A, and Corporate Security Architecture issues. Tami Sisneros regarding Corporate Architecture Approvals. Craig

Dave, I will try to locate and take a look at the actual llvm logic that deletes based on UB-presence, one of these days, and report back. In the mean time... Your “For example:" is a plausibility argument only. It is not meaningful until you can show this happening in real source code from real applications that are compiler warning free and static analysis warning free. Hal

Hi! I'm making a strange observation in my backend, that ends in illegal code: Version 1: - I lower FrameIndex to TargetFrameIndex (nothing special) - I generate a special address-register ADD instruction in eliminateFrameIndex() to write FramePointer + offset into a new address-register - I use explicit load and store and address-registers in my target instruction patterns: eg (store

I intend to release a project I wrote with Rails. What is the right licensing scheme for a web application (content managing system) which could grow with plugins and add-ons ? Personally, I would prefer the GPL but does that mean any add-on to the CMS (like task management) will have to be GPL ? If some people contribute to the code could it still be double-licenced so that the people who