[PATCH] D68342: [Analysis] Don't assume that unsigned overflow can't happen in EmitGEPOffset

[Mikhail Maltsev via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

miyuki added a comment.

In D68342#1710616 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68342#1710616>, @lebedev.ri wrote:

> In D68342#1710600 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68342#1710600>, @miyuki wrote:
>
> > @lebedev.ri, do you agree that all address spaces should be treated the same way as address space 0 (i.e. no signed overflow)?
>
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't so, i don't think it's really documented what normal assumptions do and don't apply to non-0-address-spaces.


OK, let's stick to what is documented for GEP (and the status quo about objects larger than half of the address space).


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D68342/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D68342