Hopefully final tweak to this testcase

llvm-svn: 5626

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 10 deletions

diff --git a/llvm/test/Regression/Transforms/BasicAA/licmtest.ll b/llvm/test/Regression/Transforms/BasicAA/licmtest.ll
index 1e4255d4efe..d838e6cb606 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Regression/Transforms/BasicAA/licmtest.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Regression/Transforms/BasicAA/licmtest.ll
@@ -1,10 +1,9 @@
 ; Test that LICM uses basicaa to do alias analysis, which is capable of 
-; disambiguating some obvious cases.  The ToRemove load should be eliminated
-; in this testcase.  This testcase was carefully contrived so that GCSE would
-; not be able to eliminate the load itself, without licm's help.  This is 
-; because, for GCSE, the load is killed by the dummy basic block.
+; disambiguating some obvious cases.  If LICM is able to disambiguate the
+; two pointers, then the load should be hoisted, and the store sunk.  Thus
+; the loop becomes empty and can be deleted by ADCE. 
 
-; RUN: if as < %s | opt -basicaa -licm -load-vn -gcse -instcombine | dis | grep ToRemove
+; RUN: if as < %s | opt -basicaa -licm --adce | dis | grep Loop
 ; RUN: then exit 1
 ; RUN: else exit 0
 ; RUN: fi
@@ -15,7 +14,7 @@ implementation
 
 int %test(bool %c) {
 	%Atmp = load int* %A
-	br bool %c, label %Dummy, label %Loop
+	br label %Loop
 Loop:
 	%ToRemove = load int* %A
 	store int %Atmp, int* %B  ; Store cannot alias %A
@@ -24,9 +23,5 @@ Loop:
 Out:
 	%X = sub int %ToRemove, %Atmp
 	ret int %X
-
-Dummy:
-	store int 7, int* %A
-	br label %Loop
 }