Remove mention of conditional branches in undefined values section. #122980
Conversation
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 Furthermore, this example does not show any conditional branches, so this comment seems to be outdated.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 llvm#122532 for more details.
|
Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project! This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified. If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page. If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers. If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide. You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums. |
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-ir Author: Calvin Beck (Chobbes) ChangesThis 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 Furthermore, this example does not show any conditional branches, so this comment seems to be outdated.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. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/122980.diff 1 Files Affected:
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
|
|
@Chobbes Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project! Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may receive a report in an email or a comment on this PR. Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or infrastructure issues. How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here. If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself. This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again. If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done! |
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.