mirror of
https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git
synced 2024-11-23 03:02:36 +01:00
3c0acd8ea8
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 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| constant-fold-branch.ll | ||
| irreducible_cfg.ll | ||
| lcssa.ll | ||
| live_block_marking.ll | ||
| merge-header.ll | ||
| phi_with_duplicating_inputs.ll | ||
| pr39783.ll | ||
| scev.ll | ||