[PM] Fix a silly bug in my recent update to the CG update logic.

I used the wrong variable to update. This was even covered by a unittest
I wrote, and the comments for the unittest were correct (if confusing)
but the test itself just matched the buggy behavior. =[

llvm-svn: 307764

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/llvm/unittests/Analysis/CGSCCPassManagerTest.cpp b/llvm/unittests/Analysis/CGSCCPassManagerTest.cpp
index 1e262683f2b..d46d9535fa4 100644
--- a/llvm/unittests/Analysis/CGSCCPassManagerTest.cpp
+++ b/llvm/unittests/Analysis/CGSCCPassManagerTest.cpp
@@ -1261,12 +1261,12 @@ TEST_F(CGSCCPassManagerTest, TestAnalysisInvalidationCGSCCUpdate) {
   // split their SCCs. Then we re-run over the whole module. Then we re-run
   // over three functions merged back into a single SCC, and then over the
   // whole module again.
-  EXPECT_EQ(6 + 2 + 6 + 3 + 6, FunctionAnalysisRuns);
+  EXPECT_EQ(6 + 3 + 6 + 3 + 6, FunctionAnalysisRuns);
 
-  // Re run the function analysis twice over the entire module, and then re-run
-  // it over the `(h3, h1, h2)` SCC due to invalidation. Then we re-un over
-  // three functions merged back into a single SCC, and then over the whole
-  // module.
-  EXPECT_EQ(6 + 2 + 6 + 3 + 6, IndirectFunctionAnalysisRuns);
+  // Re run the function analysis over the entire module, and then re-run it
+  // over the `(h3, h1, h2)` SCC due to invalidation. Then we re-run it over
+  // the entire module, then the three functions merged back into a single SCC,
+  // and then over the whole module.
+  EXPECT_EQ(6 + 3 + 6 + 3 + 6, IndirectFunctionAnalysisRuns);
 }
 }