[LLVMdev] Proposal: intp type

[John McCall]

John McCall wrote:
> I didn't realize that an identity zext was actually invalid IR.  That 
> seems like it probably causes more trouble than it's worth.
>
> Anyway, I suspect the question is whether you would rather break these 
> invariants (which are probably not critical for most optimizations) or 
> slowly accumulate duplicate code paths in every pass that looks at zexts 
> and truncs.
>   

Actually, I take this back;  there are definitely common optimizations 
that are going to be much more complicated if they have to deal with 
intptrs, most obviously instcombining trunc/zext/sext.

John.