[PATCH] D108903: [llvm-reduce] Add reduce operands pass

Tue Sep 7 15:05:42 PDT 2021

aeubanks added a comment.

In D108903#2988047 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108903#2988047>, @lebedev.ri wrote:

> In D108903#2988032 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108903#2988032>, @aeubanks wrote:
>
>> In D108903#2987942 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108903#2987942>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't it be better to leave the question of with what to replace to a separate patch, and stick to the current consistent practice here?
>>
>> I don't think it matters too much if we've agreed in the thread that null is better, and we do a followup patch soon where we add a flag and consolidate what we replace things with into a helper method controlled by the flag.
>
> But did we agree on null?

Reading through the thread, there was a vague consensus that using undef was not ideal and null is probably better in most cases. https://groups.google.com/g/llvm-dev/c/ofvHCsXrLN8

> And i'm not really sure what "I don't think it matters too much" means - this either does introduce inconsistency or it does not.

It does introduce inconsistency, but I don't think the inconsistency matters. We'll end up either having undef or null in the reduced repro, either one is probably for most cases.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D108903/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D108903