| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.
Will be re-reverting again.
llvm-svn: 358552
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
MemorySSA is not properly updated in LoopSimplifyCFG after recent changes. Use SplitBlock utility to resolve that and clear all updates once handleDeadExits is finished.
All updates that follow are removal of edges which are safe to handle via the removeEdge() API.
Also, deleting dead blocks is done correctly as is, i.e. delete from MemorySSA before updating the CFG and DT.
Reviewers: mkazantsev, rtereshin
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, george.burgess.iv, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58524
llvm-svn: 354613
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2nd part of D57095 with the same reason, just in another place. We never
fold branches that are not immediately in the current loop, but this check
is missing in `IsEdgeLive` As result, it may think that the edge in subloop is
dead while it's live. It's a pessimization in the current stance.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57147
Reviewed By: rupprecht
llvm-svn: 352170
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When we choose whether or not we should mark block as dead, we have an
inconsistent logic in markup of live blocks.
- We take candidate IF its terminator branches on constant AND it is immediately
in current loop;
- We mark successor live IF its terminator doesn't branch by constant OR it branches
by constant and the successor is its always taken block.
What we are missing here is that when the terminator branches on a constant but is
not taken as a candidate because is it not immediately in the current loop, we will
mark only one (always taken) successor as live. Therefore, we do NOT do the actual
folding but may NOT mark one of the successors as live. So the result of markup is
wrong in this case, and we may then hit various asserts.
Thanks Jordan Rupprech for reporting this!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57095
Reviewed By: rupprecht
llvm-svn: 352024
|
|
|
llvm-svn: 352023
|
