| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
hoist a 'not' from incoming values
Summary:
As it can be seen in the tests in D65143/D65144, even though we have formed an '@llvm.umul.with.overflow'
and got rid of potential for division-by-zero, the control flow remains, we still have that branch.
We have this condition:
```
// Don't fold i1 branches on PHIs which contain binary operators
// These can often be turned into switches and other things.
if (PN->getType()->isIntegerTy(1) &&
(isa<BinaryOperator>(PN->getIncomingValue(0)) ||
isa<BinaryOperator>(PN->getIncomingValue(1)) ||
isa<BinaryOperator>(IfCond)))
return false;
```
which was added back in rL121764 to help with `select` formation i think?
That check prevents us to flatten the CFG here, even though we know
we no longer need that guard and will be able to drop everything
but the '@llvm.umul.with.overflow' + `not`.
As it can be seen from tests, we end here because the `not` is being
sinked into the PHI's incoming values by InstCombine,
so we can't workaround this by hoisting it to after PHI.
Thus i suggest that we relax that check to not bailout if we'd get to hoist the `not`.
Reviewers: craig.topper, spatel, fhahn, nikic
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65147
llvm-svn: 370349
|
