correct prerequisite rules #35
Conversation
|
Zcd or D doesn't make much sense, Zcd implies D? |
You can specify either. Zcd implies D, and D will infer C.FSDSP etc. if C or Zca are included even if Zcd isn't included. |
Which is sorear's point: that Zcd || D is entirely equivalent to D as a boolean expression given Zcd implies D. I think what you want here to make it not weird (other than due to the retroactive splitting of C) is Zcd or DC. I don't think you're right that DZca infers Zcd though? LLVM doesn't do that, and I don't see why it would. Isn't the whole point of Zca to let you not have things like Zcd? |
|
Oh yes you're right, apologies.
Will fix tomorrow
Tariq
…On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 17:54 Jessica Clarke, ***@***.***> wrote:
Zcd or D doesn't make much sense, Zcd implies D?
You can specify either. Zcd implies D, and D will infer C.FSDSP etc. if C
or Zca are included even if Zcd isn't included. It's weird but that's how
it is.
Which is sorear's point: that Zcd || D is entirely equivalent to D as a
boolean expression given Zcd implies D. I think what you want here to make
it *not* weird (other than due to the retroactive splitting of C) is Zcd
or DC.
I don't think you're right that DZca infers Zcd though? LLVM doesn't do
that, and I don't see why it would. Isn't the whole point of Zca to let you
not have things like Zcd?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#35 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOCTJABMZOEHMM7KBHXZS4LYQE4FFAVCNFSM6AAAAABCI37DHCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMBYGU2DEMJSGI>
.
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
Addresses #29