Revert r267210, it makes clang assert (PR27490).

llvm-svn: 267232

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineLoadStoreAlloca.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineLoadStoreAlloca.cpp
index e8314006dd1..96f09084482 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineLoadStoreAlloca.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineLoadStoreAlloca.cpp
@@ -327,8 +327,6 @@ static LoadInst *combineLoadToNewType(InstCombiner &IC, LoadInst &LI, Type *NewT
   LoadInst *NewLoad = IC.Builder->CreateAlignedLoad(
       IC.Builder->CreateBitCast(Ptr, NewTy->getPointerTo(AS)),
       LI.getAlignment(), LI.getName() + Suffix);
-  NewLoad->setAtomic(LI.getOrdering(), LI.getSynchScope());
-  assert(!LI.isVolatile() && "volatile unhandled here");
   MDBuilder MDB(NewLoad->getContext());
   for (const auto &MDPair : MD) {
     unsigned ID = MDPair.first;
@@ -401,8 +399,6 @@ static StoreInst *combineStoreToNewValue(InstCombiner &IC, StoreInst &SI, Value
   StoreInst *NewStore = IC.Builder->CreateAlignedStore(
       V, IC.Builder->CreateBitCast(Ptr, V->getType()->getPointerTo(AS)),
       SI.getAlignment());
-  NewStore->setAtomic(SI.getOrdering(), SI.getSynchScope());
-  assert(!SI.isVolatile() && "volatile unhandled here");
   for (const auto &MDPair : MD) {
     unsigned ID = MDPair.first;
     MDNode *N = MDPair.second;
@@ -460,9 +456,9 @@ static StoreInst *combineStoreToNewValue(InstCombiner &IC, StoreInst &SI, Value
 /// later. However, it is risky in case some backend or other part of LLVM is
 /// relying on the exact type loaded to select appropriate atomic operations.
 static Instruction *combineLoadToOperationType(InstCombiner &IC, LoadInst &LI) {
-  // FIXME: We could probably with some care handle both volatile and ordered
-  // atomic loads here but it isn't clear that this is important.
-  if (!LI.isUnordered())
+  // FIXME: We could probably with some care handle both volatile and atomic
+  // loads here but it isn't clear that this is important.
+  if (!LI.isSimple())
     return nullptr;
 
   if (LI.use_empty())
@@ -896,7 +892,6 @@ Instruction *InstCombiner::visitLoadInst(LoadInst &LI) {
         V1->setAtomic(LI.getOrdering(), LI.getSynchScope());
         V2->setAlignment(Align);
         V2->setAtomic(LI.getOrdering(), LI.getSynchScope());
-        assert(!LI.isVolatile() && "volatile unhandled here");
         return SelectInst::Create(SI->getCondition(), V1, V2);
       }
 
@@ -939,9 +934,9 @@ Instruction *InstCombiner::visitLoadInst(LoadInst &LI) {
 /// the store instruction as otherwise there is no way to signal whether it was
 /// combined or not: IC.EraseInstFromFunction returns a null pointer.
 static bool combineStoreToValueType(InstCombiner &IC, StoreInst &SI) {
-  // FIXME: We could probably with some care handle both volatile and ordered
-  // atomic stores here but it isn't clear that this is important.
-  if (!SI.isUnordered())
+  // FIXME: We could probably with some care handle both volatile and atomic
+  // stores here but it isn't clear that this is important.
+  if (!SI.isSimple())
     return false;
 
   Value *V = SI.getValueOperand();