[llvm] ca65055 - Remove mention of conditional branches in undefined values section. (#122980)

[via llvm-commits]

Author: Calvin Beck
Date: 2025-01-22T09:07:19+01:00
New Revision: ca65055e792a497551d580c8adf30c28090e45cd

URL: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/ca65055e792a497551d580c8adf30c28090e45cd
DIFF: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/ca65055e792a497551d580c8adf30c28090e45cd.diff

LOG: Remove mention of conditional branches in undefined values section. (#122980)

This statement is somewhat confusing when paired with the later
statement that says "Branching on an undefined value is undefined
behavior". Furthermore, this example does not show any conditional
branches, so this comment seems to be outdated.

See issue #122532 for more details.

Added: 
    

Modified: 
    llvm/docs/LangRef.rst

Removed: 
    


################################################################################
diff  --git a/llvm/docs/LangRef.rst b/llvm/docs/LangRef.rst
index 8cc9036d1b67f6..b922636d6c914b 100644
--- a/llvm/docs/LangRef.rst
+++ b/llvm/docs/LangRef.rst
@@ -4776,8 +4776,8 @@ allowing the '``or``' to be folded to -1.
       %B = undef
       %C = undef
 
-This set of examples shows that undefined '``select``' (and conditional
-branch) conditions can go *either way*, but they have to come from one
+This set of examples shows that undefined '``select``'
+conditions can go *either way*, but they have to come from one
 of the two operands. In the ``%A`` example, if ``%X`` and ``%Y`` were
 both known to have a clear low bit, then ``%A`` would have to have a
 cleared low bit. However, in the ``%C`` example, the optimizer is