maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/ifcvt_canFallThroughTo.mir

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

66 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

[IfConversion] Add missing check in IfConversion/canFallThroughTo Summary: When trying to figure out if MBB could fallthrough to ToMBB (possibly by falling through a bunch of other MBBs) we didn't actually check if there was fallthrough between the last two blocks in the chain. Reviewers: kparzysz, iteratee, MatzeB Reviewed By: kparzysz, iteratee Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32996 llvm-svn: 302650
2017-05-10 21:06:13 +08:00
# RUN: llc -mtriple=arm-apple-ios -o - %s -run-pass if-converter | FileCheck %s
---
name: f1
body: |
bb.0:
successors: %bb.1
B %bb.1
bb.1:
successors: %bb.2, %bb.4
Followup on Proposal to move MIR physical register namespace to '$' sigil. Discussed here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-January/120320.html In preparation for adding support for named vregs we are changing the sigil for physical registers in MIR to '$' from '%'. This will prevent name clashes of named physical register with named vregs. llvm-svn: 323922
2018-02-01 06:04:26 +08:00
Bcc %bb.4, 1, $cpsr
[IfConversion] Add missing check in IfConversion/canFallThroughTo Summary: When trying to figure out if MBB could fallthrough to ToMBB (possibly by falling through a bunch of other MBBs) we didn't actually check if there was fallthrough between the last two blocks in the chain. Reviewers: kparzysz, iteratee, MatzeB Reviewed By: kparzysz, iteratee Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32996 llvm-svn: 302650
2017-05-10 21:06:13 +08:00
bb.2:
successors: %bb.3, %bb.5
Followup on Proposal to move MIR physical register namespace to '$' sigil. 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
2018-02-01 06:04:26 +08:00
Bcc %bb.5, 1, $cpsr
[IfConversion] Add missing check in IfConversion/canFallThroughTo Summary: When trying to figure out if MBB could fallthrough to ToMBB (possibly by falling through a bunch of other MBBs) we didn't actually check if there was fallthrough between the last two blocks in the chain. Reviewers: kparzysz, iteratee, MatzeB Reviewed By: kparzysz, iteratee Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32996 llvm-svn: 302650
2017-05-10 21:06:13 +08:00
bb.3:
successors: %bb.5
B %bb.5
bb.4:
successors:
bb.5:
successors: %bb.1, %bb.6
Followup on Proposal to move MIR physical register namespace to '$' sigil. 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
2018-02-01 06:04:26 +08:00
Bcc %bb.1, 1, $cpsr
[IfConversion] Add missing check in IfConversion/canFallThroughTo Summary: When trying to figure out if MBB could fallthrough to ToMBB (possibly by falling through a bunch of other MBBs) we didn't actually check if there was fallthrough between the last two blocks in the chain. Reviewers: kparzysz, iteratee, MatzeB Reviewed By: kparzysz, iteratee Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32996 llvm-svn: 302650
2017-05-10 21:06:13 +08:00
bb.6:
BX_RET 14, _
...
# IfConversion.cpp/canFallThroughTo thought there was a fallthrough from
# bb.4 to bb5 even if the successor list was empty.
# bb.4 is empty, so it surely looks like it can fallthrough, but this is what
# happens for a bb just containing an "unreachable".
#CHECK: body: |
#CHECK: bb.0:
#CHECK: successors: %bb.1
#CHECK: bb.1:
#CHECK: successors: %bb.3({{.*}}), %bb.2
# The original brr_cond from bb.1, jumping to the empty bb
#CHECK: Bcc %bb.2
#CHECK: B %bb.3
# Empty bb.2, originally containing "unreachable" and thus has no successors
[MIRPrinter] Print empty successor lists when they cannot be guessed This re-applies commit r313685, this time with the proper updates to the test cases. Original commit message: Unreachable blocks in the machine instr representation are these weird empty blocks with no successors. The MIR printer used to not print empty lists of successors. However, the MIR parser now treats non-printed list of successors as "please guess it for me". As a result, the parser tries to guess the list of successors and given the block is empty, just assumes it falls through the next block (if any). For instance, the following test case used to fail the verifier. The MIR printer would print entry / \ true (def) false (no list of successors) | split.true (use) The MIR parser would understand this: entry / \ true (def) false | / <-- invalid edge split.true (use) Because of the invalid edge, we get the "def does not dominate all uses" error. The fix consists in printing empty successor lists, so that the parser knows what to do for unreachable blocks. rdar://problem/34022159 llvm-svn: 313696
2017-09-20 07:34:12 +08:00
# and we cannot guess them: we should print an empty list of successors.
[IfConversion] Add missing check in IfConversion/canFallThroughTo Summary: When trying to figure out if MBB could fallthrough to ToMBB (possibly by falling through a bunch of other MBBs) we didn't actually check if there was fallthrough between the last two blocks in the chain. Reviewers: kparzysz, iteratee, MatzeB Reviewed By: kparzysz, iteratee Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32996 llvm-svn: 302650
2017-05-10 21:06:13 +08:00
#CHECK: bb.2:
[MIRPrinter] Print empty successor lists when they cannot be guessed This re-applies commit r313685, this time with the proper updates to the test cases. Original commit message: Unreachable blocks in the machine instr representation are these weird empty blocks with no successors. The MIR printer used to not print empty lists of successors. However, the MIR parser now treats non-printed list of successors as "please guess it for me". As a result, the parser tries to guess the list of successors and given the block is empty, just assumes it falls through the next block (if any). For instance, the following test case used to fail the verifier. The MIR printer would print entry / \ true (def) false (no list of successors) | split.true (use) The MIR parser would understand this: entry / \ true (def) false | / <-- invalid edge split.true (use) Because of the invalid edge, we get the "def does not dominate all uses" error. The fix consists in printing empty successor lists, so that the parser knows what to do for unreachable blocks. rdar://problem/34022159 llvm-svn: 313696
2017-09-20 07:34:12 +08:00
#CHECK: successors:{{ *$}}
[IfConversion] Add missing check in IfConversion/canFallThroughTo Summary: When trying to figure out if MBB could fallthrough to ToMBB (possibly by falling through a bunch of other MBBs) we didn't actually check if there was fallthrough between the last two blocks in the chain. Reviewers: kparzysz, iteratee, MatzeB Reviewed By: kparzysz, iteratee Subscribers: javed.absar, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32996 llvm-svn: 302650
2017-05-10 21:06:13 +08:00
#CHECK: bb.3:
#CHECK: successors: %bb.1
# Conditional BX_RET and then loop back to bb.1
#CHECK: BX_RET 0
#CHECK: B %bb.1