<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>What I usually end up doing when reducing by hand is to introduce a new function parameter to replace a deleted instruction, e.g.:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>define @f(i32 %x) {<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> %y = add i32 %x, ...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>}<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>=><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>define @f(i32 %x, i32 %y) {<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <remove instr %y><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>}<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Though not all users will want this sort of reduction..<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I agree with what other said about undef/poison: avoid them at all costs when reducing. It will just expose some other bug regarding handling of undef in optimizers instead of the bug you wanted to track down :)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Nuno<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Arthur Eubanks via llvm-dev<br><b>Sent:</b> 30 August 2021 18:50<br><b>To:</b> llvm-dev <llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org><br><b>Subject:</b> [llvm-dev] [llvm-reduce] Reduction to undef/poison/null?<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Currently in llvm-reduce when we try to remove instructions, we'll RAUW them with undef. But it seems nicer to have the final IR use null values (e.g. 0, zeroinitializer, etc) rather than undef. Should we attempt to use null values? Or why undef over poison?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>