Commit Graph

5 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Eric Christopher cee313d288 Revert "Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass.""
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.

Will be re-reverting again.

llvm-svn: 358552
2019-04-17 04:52:47 +00:00
Eric Christopher a863435128 Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass."
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).

This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.

llvm-svn: 358546
2019-04-17 02:12:23 +00:00
Mikael Holmen b6f76002d9 [PM] Port Scalarizer to the new pass manager.
Patch by: markus (Markus Lavin)

Reviewers: chandlerc, fedor.sergeev

Reviewed By: fedor.sergeev

Subscribers: llvm-commits, Ka-Ka, bjope

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54695

llvm-svn: 347392
2018-11-21 14:00:17 +00:00
Neil Henning 3d4579829e Fix an ordering bug in the scalarizer.
I've added a new test case that causes the scalarizer to try and use
dead-and-erased values - caused by the basic blocks not being in
domination order within the function. To fix this, instead of iterating
through the blocks in function order, I walk them in reverse post order.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52540

llvm-svn: 344128
2018-10-10 09:27:45 +00:00
Mehdi Amini 8484f92f7f [Scalarizer] PR28108: Skip over nullptr rather than crashing on it.
Summary:
In Scalarizer::gather we see if we already have a scattered form of Op,
and in that case use the new form.

In the particular case of PR28108, the found ValueVector SV has size 2,
where the first Value is nullptr, and the second is indeed a proper Value.
The nullptr then caused an assert to blow when we tried to do
cast<Instruction>(SV[I]).

With this patch we check SV[I] before doing the cast, and if it's nullptr
we just skip over it.

I don't know the Scalarizer well enough to know if this is the best fix
or if something should be done else where to prevent the nullptr from
being in the ValueVector at all, but at least this avoids the crash
and looking at the test case output it looks reasonable.

Reviewers: hfinkel, frasercrmck, wala, mehdi_amini

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21518

llvm-svn: 275359
2016-07-14 01:31:25 +00:00