Revert the majority of the next patch in the address space series:

r165941: Resubmit the changes to llvm core to update the functions to
         support different pointer sizes on a per address space basis.

Despite this commit log, this change primarily changed stuff outside of
VMCore, and those changes do not carry any tests for correctness (or
even plausibility), and we have consistently found questionable or flat
out incorrect cases in these changes. Most of them are probably correct,
but we need to devise a system that makes it more clear when we have
handled the address space concerns correctly, and ideally each pass that
gets updated would receive an accompanying test case that exercises that
pass specificaly w.r.t. alternate address spaces.

However, from this commit, I have retained the new C API entry points.
Those were an orthogonal change that probably should have been split
apart, but they seem entirely good.

In several places the changes were very obvious cleanups with no actual
multiple address space code added; these I have not reverted when
I spotted them.

In a few other places there were merge conflicts due to a cleaner
solution being implemented later, often not using address spaces at all.
In those cases, I've preserved the new code which isn't address space
dependent.

This is part of my ongoing effort to clean out the partial address space
code which carries high risk and low test coverage, and not likely to be
finished before the 3.2 release looms closer. Duncan and I would both
like to see the above issues addressed before we return to these
changes.

llvm-svn: 167222

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/MemCpyOptimizer.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/MemCpyOptimizer.cpp
index 97fff9edd68..517657cf526 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/MemCpyOptimizer.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/MemCpyOptimizer.cpp
@@ -174,11 +174,10 @@ bool MemsetRange::isProfitableToUseMemset(const DataLayout &TD) const {
   // this width can be stored.  If so, check to see whether we will end up
   // actually reducing the number of stores used.
   unsigned Bytes = unsigned(End-Start);
-  unsigned AS = cast<StoreInst>(TheStores[0])->getPointerAddressSpace();
-  unsigned NumPointerStores = Bytes/TD.getPointerSize(AS);
+  unsigned NumPointerStores = Bytes/TD.getPointerSize();
 
   // Assume the remaining bytes if any are done a byte at a time.
-  unsigned NumByteStores = Bytes - NumPointerStores*TD.getPointerSize(AS);
+  unsigned NumByteStores = Bytes - NumPointerStores*TD.getPointerSize();
 
   // If we will reduce the # stores (according to this heuristic), do the
   // transformation.  This encourages merging 4 x i8 -> i32 and 2 x i16 -> i32