There was an alias between 'simplifycfg' and 'simplify-cfg' in the
PassRegistry. That was the original reason for this patch, which
effectively removes the alias.
This patch also replaces all occurrances of 'simplify-cfg'
by 'simplifycfg'. Reason for choosing that form for the name is
that it matches the DEBUG_TYPE for the pass, and the legacy PM name
and also how it is spelled out in other passes such as
'loop-simplifycfg', and in other options such as
'simplifycfg-merge-cond-stores'.
I for some reason the name should be changed to 'simplify-cfg' in
the future, then I think such a renaming should be more widely done
and not only impacting the PassRegistry.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105627
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a large number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
Also add baseline tests to show effect of later patches.
There were a couple of regressions here that were never caught,
but my patch set that this is a preparation to will fix them.
This is the third attempt to land this patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61150
llvm-svn: 363319
This reverts 363226 and 363227, both NFC intended
I swear I fixed the test case that is failing, and ran
the tests, but I will look into it again.
llvm-svn: 363229
Also add baseline tests to show effect of later patches.
There were a couple of regressions here that were never caught,
but my patch set that this is a preparation to will fix them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61150
llvm-svn: 363226
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
A true or false result is expected from a comparison, but it seems the possibility of undef was overlooked, which could lead to a failed assert. This is fixed by this patch by bailing out if we encounter undef.
The bug is old and the assert has been there since the end of 2014, so it seems this is unusual enough to forego optimization.
Patch by JesperAntonsson.
Reviewers: spatel, eeckstein, hans
Reviewed By: hans
Subscribers: uabelho, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40639
llvm-svn: 319768
Summary:
A true or false result is expected from a comparison, but it seems the possibility of undef was overlooked, which could lead to a failed assert. This is fixed by this patch by bailing out if we encounter undef.
The bug is old and the assert has been there since the end of 2014, so it seems this is unusual enough to forego optimization.
Patch by: JesperAntonsson
Reviewers: spatel, eeckstein, hans
Reviewed By: hans
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40639
llvm-svn: 319537
Bjorn Pettersson