From 93e39af0592be644fa8b55f89d2752f18e884838 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Calvin Beck Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:37:15 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Remove mention of conditional branches in undefined values section. 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 Furthermore, this example does not show any conditional branches, so this comment seems to be outdated.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. --- llvm/docs/LangRef.rst | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/llvm/docs/LangRef.rst b/llvm/docs/LangRef.rst index 8cc9036d1b67f..b922636d6c914 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