[llvm-dev] RFC: Killing undef and spreading poison

[Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev]

I guess, it may help if we don't have a literal for poison (as we do for 
undef).

Then freeze(%x) would always be equal to freeze(%x) and there would be 
no question about freeze(poison).

-Krzysztof


On 10/18/2016 3:22 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 3:12 PM, Sanjoy Das wrote:
>> But in the new proposal, in:
>>
>>   %x = freeze(poison)
>>   %y = xor %x, %x
>>
>> that is no longer allowed (%y _has_ to be 0) -- all uses of %x will see
>> some garbage, but fixed bit pattern.
>
> What about this:
>   %x = phi poison, poison  (I'm simplifying the syntax here)
> Can this be simplified to "%x = poison", i.e. can we rauw(%x, poison)?
>
> Or
>   %x = load %uninitialized_var
>   %y = load %uninitialized_var
>   // are %x and %y equal (i.e. is "cmp eq %x, %y" == true)?
>   // is freeze(%x) equal to freeze(%y)?
>
> I'm wary about such rules. I have a feeling that this is going to create
> its own set of problems.
>
> -Krzysztof
>
>

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation