[llvm-dev] Should ValueTracking::GetUnderlyingObject stop on Alloca instructions rather than calling SimplifyInstruction? (original) (raw)
Craig Topper via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Apr 12 14:23:16 PDT 2017
- Previous message: [llvm-dev] Should ValueTracking::GetUnderlyingObject stop on Alloca instructions rather than calling SimplifyInstruction?
- Next message: [llvm-dev] Should ValueTracking::GetUnderlyingObject stop on Alloca instructions rather than calling SimplifyInstruction?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ping
~Craig
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote:
I notice that GetUnderlyingObject has a few checks, but alloca isn't one of them. Then it fall backs to SimplifyInstruction which doesn't know about alloca so falls back to just trying to constant fold it. This seems a little silly since I assume alloca can't be constant folded. Should we just detect this early in GetUnderlyingObject and stop?
~Craig -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170412/2108dc77/attachment.html>
- Previous message: [llvm-dev] Should ValueTracking::GetUnderlyingObject stop on Alloca instructions rather than calling SimplifyInstruction?
- Next message: [llvm-dev] Should ValueTracking::GetUnderlyingObject stop on Alloca instructions rather than calling SimplifyInstruction?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]