There's two properties we want to verify:
1. That the successors returned by analyzeBranch are in the CFG
successor list, and
2. That there are no extraneous successors are in the CFG successor
list.
The previous implementation mostly accomplished this, but in a very
convoluted manner.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79793
Discussed here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-January/120320.html
In preparation for adding support for named vregs we are changing the sigil for
physical registers in MIR to '$' from '%'. This will prevent name clashes of
named physical register with named vregs.
llvm-svn: 323922
In getOffsetRange, Max can be set to 0 to force the extender replacement
to be at or below the original value. This would cause the new offset to
be non-negative, which is preferred for memory instructions (to reduce
the likelihood of it getting constant-extended due to predication). The
problem happens when the range is shifted by an offset (present in the
instruction being examined) and the offset is negative. The entire range
for the allowable deviation will then be strictly negative. This creates
a problem, since 0 is assumed to be a valid deviation.
llvm-svn: 316601
James Y Knight