Unfortunately, it seems we really do need to take the long route;
start from the "merge" block, find (all the) "dispatch" blocks,
and deal with each "dispatch" block separately, instead of simply
starting from each "dispatch" block like it would logically make sense,
otherwise we run into a number of other missing folds around
`switch` formation, missing sinking/hoisting and phase ordering.
This reverts commit 85628ce75b3084dc0f185a320152baf85b59aba7.
This reverts commit c5fff9095342a792bf4b9a077fe3c3a83c4e566c.
This reverts commit 34a98e1046e3aa55e5f26ab20a15e96b4034d25a.
This reverts commit 1e353f092288309d74d380367aa50bbd383780ed.
The current `FoldTwoEntryPHINode()` is not quite designed correctly.
It starts from the merge point, and then tries to detect
the 'divergence' point.
Because of that, it is limited to the simple two-predecessor case,
where the PHI completely goes away. but that is rather pessimistic,
and it doesn't make much sense from the costmodel side of things.
For example if there is some other unrelated predecessor of
the merge point, we could split the merge point so that
the then/else blocks first branch to an empty block
and then to the merge point, and then we'd be able to speculate
the then/else code.
But if we'd instead simply start at the divergence point,
and look for the merge point, then we'll just natively support this case.
There's also the fact that `SpeculativelyExecuteBB()` already does
just that, but only if there is a single block to speculate,
and with a much more restrictive cost model.
But that also means we have code duplication.
Now, sadly, while this is as much NFCI as possible,
there is just no way to cleanly migrate to
the proper implementation. The results *are* going to be different
somewhat because of various phase ordering effects and SimplifyCFG
block iteration strategy.
Based ontop of D104598, which is a NFCI-ish refactoring.
Here, a restriction, that only empty blocks can be merged, is lifted.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104597
These all (and some others) are being affected by D104597,
but they are manually-written, which rather complicates
checking the effect that change has on them.
`llc -march` is problematic because it only switches the target
architecture, but leaves the operating system unchanged. This
occasionally leads to indeterministic tests because the OS from
LLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE is used.
However we can simply always use `llc -mtriple` instead. This changes
all the tests to do this to avoid people using -march when they copy and
paste parts of tests.
See also the discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D35287
llvm-svn: 309755
on a per-function basis.
Previously some of the passes were conditionally added to ARM's pass pipeline
based on the target machine's subtarget. This patch makes changes to add those
passes unconditionally and execute them conditonally based on the predicate
functor passed to the pass constructors. This enables running different sets of
passes for different functions in the module.
rdar://problem/20542263
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8717
llvm-svn: 239325
