| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
loops in a function.
These are relatively confusing to talk about and compute correctly so it
seems really good to write down their implementation in one place. I've
replaced one place we needed this in the loop PM infrastructure and
I have another place in a pending patch that wants it.
We can't quite use this for the core loop PM walk because there we're
sometimes working on a sub-forest.
I'll add the expected unittests before committing this but wanted to
make sure folks were happy with these names / comments.
Credit goes to Richard Smith for the idea for naming the order where siblings
are in reverse program order but the tree traversal remains preorder.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28932
llvm-svn: 292569
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
other test cases.
Summary: Refactor out LoopInfo computation so that it can be
used by other test cases.
So i am changing this test proactively for later commit, which will use
this function.
Reviewers: sanjoy, hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28778
llvm-svn: 292250
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 292081
|
|
|
Summary:
Use getLoopLatch in place of isLoopSimplifyForm. we do not need
to know whether the loop has a preheader nor dedicated exits.
Reviewers: hfinkel, sanjoy, atrick, mkuper
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28724
llvm-svn: 292078
|
