From f50d4b6cdcbe0e8f20275bc040018bfb1d593eff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sean Silva Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:05:41 +0000 Subject: Work around PR28400 a bit harder. We were still crashing in the "no change" case because LVI was not getting invalidated. See the thread "Should analyses be able to hold AssertingVH to IR? (related to PR28400)" for more discussion. llvm-svn: 274656 --- llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/JumpThreading.cpp | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/JumpThreading.cpp') diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/JumpThreading.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/JumpThreading.cpp index 8e6020bb22e..d0266b8bf7e 100644 --- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/JumpThreading.cpp +++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/JumpThreading.cpp @@ -148,11 +148,14 @@ PreservedAnalyses JumpThreadingPass::run(Function &F, } bool Changed = runImpl(F, &TLI, &LVI, HasProfileData, std::move(BFI), std::move(BPI)); + + // FIXME: We need to invalidate LVI to avoid PR28400. Is there a better + // solution? + AM.invalidate(F); + if (!Changed) return PreservedAnalyses::all(); PreservedAnalyses PA; - // FIXME: Not preserving LVI! We need it to be invalidated so that we - // don't run into issues like PR28400. Is there a better solution? PA.preserve(); return PA; } -- cgit v1.2.3