> one of the first two optimizations is also wrong because it did not give subsequent optimizations the chance to observe that relationship. If you view them a

> one of the first two optimizations is also wrong because it did not give subsequent optimizations the chance to observe that relationship. If you view them as actual equivalent C code, sure. In which case, be my guest at saying those are wrong. But I think you're conflating actual C with the imitation-C used to represent the LLVM IR in the article. I responded to this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42907292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42907292