https://github.com/nikic closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93823
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/nikic updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93823
>From 7fbc0366638de3262294c1923a1b45aa6338fe8f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nikita Popov
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 09:57:21 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [ConstantFold] Remove non-trivial gep-of-gep fold
This fold is s
https://github.com/aeubanks approved this pull request.
this PR looks good, and further dropping the fold is also good
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93823
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bi
https://github.com/dtcxzyw approved this pull request.
LGTM.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93823
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
nikic wrote:
> > because the DL-aware constant folding will take care of this anyway.
>
> Can you point out where we do this fold?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1f46729a18ef13c3ba4184ead1da4ab3037cb7ae/llvm/lib/Analysis/ConstantFolding.cpp#L865
> > I've only kept the straightforwar
https://github.com/dtcxzyw commented:
> because the DL-aware constant folding will take care of this anyway.
Can you point out where we do this fold?
> I've only kept the straightforward zero-index case, where we just concatenate
> two GEPs.
Is there a test for this case?
https://github.com
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-transforms
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-ir
Author: Nikita Popov (nikic)
Changes
This fold is subtly incorrect, because DL-unaware constant folding does not
know the correct index type to use, and just performs the addition in the type
that happens to
https://github.com/nikic created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93823
This fold is subtly incorrect, because DL-unaware constant folding does not
know the correct index type to use, and just performs the addition in the type
that happens to already be there. This is incorrect, since