[PATCH] D87994: [LangRef] Clarify the behavior of memory access instructions when pointers/sizes aren't well-defined

[Juneyoung Lee via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

aqjune added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/LangRef.rst:3743
+The result of :ref:`freeze instruction <i_freeze>` is well defined regardless
+of its operand.
+
----------------
jdoerfert wrote:
> aqjune wrote:
> > jdoerfert wrote:
> > > > A constant of a single value, non-vector type is well defined if it is a non-undef constant.
> > > 
> > > Do we need "single value" at all? When are aggregates different? If so, we need a different name.
> > > 
> > > The sentence about integer constants should then be removed from the first paragraph.
> > > 
> > It is a single value type that is not a vector type - I followed the categorization of a single value type described at LangRef. When it is an aggregate type, it follows the description in the first paragraph.
> > 
> > I think the sentence about integer constants in the first paragraph helps emphasize that a well-defined value is a dynamic concept, but not a strong opinion. 
> Fair. can we link https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#single-value-types ?
> 
> I don't see how separating integer constants makes it less confusing, or I don't understand the problem.
> When I read it I asked myself why integer constants are different, or if they were not.
Since it can be interpreted as that an integer constant is special, simply removed it


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D87994/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D87994