<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 04/25/2017 03:48 PM, Andrew Kelley wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACXN+=TpMNo0A5dkx5toZr=NmA+8QbPxdqd0c-VnLsB9Rzkp-A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Can you elaborate a
little on why you think "undef" is the correct value?
Inside LLVM, undef essentially means "any value we
choose". The language reference has a section on this.
It would be entirely correct if we emitted all 1s
instead of all 0s for undef. If you really want it to be
.bss, zeroinitializer seems to be the better choice.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, any value would be semantically correct. What I am
communicating to LLVM is "any value will be fine here"
which means that LLVM can do whatever it wants here to
achieve better performance, compile time speed, smaller
object size, or another goal that I have not thought of.
And in this email thread I am suggesting that LLVM should
probably choose the smaller object size goal in this
situation, choose 0 for the value, and put it in .bss.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ah ok, in that case it makes sense. As Eli said, feel free to submit
a patch.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Tobias<br>
<br>
--
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
</pre>
</body>
</html>