From 44e13911bc4ea87db8af7cc2fde3245367ceb7ed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 11:17:06 +0000
Subject: Rather than trying to gracefully handle input sequences with repeated
 blocks, assert that this doesn't happen. We don't want to bother trying to
 support this call pattern as it isn't necessary.

llvm-svn: 156167
---
 llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor.cpp | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor.cpp')

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor.cpp
index 0178c336d9e..4d82857c1b2 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor.cpp
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ buildExtractionBlockSet(ArrayRef<BasicBlock *> BBs) {
   for (ArrayRef<BasicBlock *>::iterator I = BBs.begin(), E = BBs.end();
        I != E; ++I) {
     if (!Result.insert(*I))
-      continue;
+      llvm_unreachable("Repeated basic blocks in extraction input");
 
     if (!isBlockValidForExtraction(**I)) {
       Result.clear();
-- 
cgit v1.2.3