hfinkel added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42366#1014546, @rjmccall wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42366#1014157, @kosarev wrote: > > > I think zero would serve better as the unknown-size value. People who are > > not aware of TBAA internals would guess that since zero-sized accesses make > > no sense, they are likely to have some special meaning. Similarly, for code > > that is supposed to process the size fields of access descriptors zero > > would be an obvious "illegal size value". In contrast, UINT64_MAX is just a > > very large number that doesn't hint anything on its special purpose. > > > My thoughts exactly. > > John. SGTM. Let's do that. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D42366 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
