2015-12-04 02:55:28 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: llc -mtriple=x86_64-pc-windows-msvc < %s | FileCheck %s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
declare i32 @__CxxFrameHandler3(...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
declare void @throw()
|
|
|
|
|
declare i16 @f()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
define i16 @test1(i16 %a, i8* %b) personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 to i8*) {
|
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
|
%cmp = icmp eq i16 %a, 10
|
|
|
|
|
br i1 %cmp, label %if.then, label %if.else
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if.then:
|
|
|
|
|
%call1 = invoke i16 @f()
|
|
|
|
|
to label %cleanup unwind label %catch.dispatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if.else:
|
|
|
|
|
%call2 = invoke i16 @f()
|
|
|
|
|
to label %cleanup unwind label %catch.dispatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.dispatch:
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%cs = catchswitch within none [ label %catch, label %catch.2 ] unwind to caller
|
2015-12-04 02:55:28 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch:
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 8, i8* null]
|
|
|
|
|
call void @throw() noreturn
|
|
|
|
|
br label %unreachable
|
2015-12-04 02:55:28 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.2:
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 64, i8* null]
|
2015-12-04 02:55:28 +08:00
|
|
|
store i8 1, i8* %b
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
call void @throw() noreturn
|
|
|
|
|
br label %unreachable
|
2015-12-04 02:55:28 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cleanup:
|
|
|
|
|
%retval = phi i16 [ %call1, %if.then ], [ %call2, %if.else ]
|
|
|
|
|
ret i16 %retval
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unreachable:
|
|
|
|
|
unreachable
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; This test verifies the case where two funclet blocks meet the old criteria
|
|
|
|
|
; to be placed at the end. The order of the blocks is not important for the
|
|
|
|
|
; purposes of this test. The failure mode is an infinite loop during
|
|
|
|
|
; compilation.
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-LABEL: .def test1;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
define i16 @test2(i16 %a, i8* %b) personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 to i8*) {
|
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
|
%cmp = icmp eq i16 %a, 10
|
|
|
|
|
br i1 %cmp, label %if.then, label %if.else
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if.then:
|
|
|
|
|
%call1 = invoke i16 @f()
|
|
|
|
|
to label %cleanup unwind label %catch.dispatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if.else:
|
|
|
|
|
%call2 = invoke i16 @f()
|
|
|
|
|
to label %cleanup unwind label %catch.dispatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.dispatch:
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%cs = catchswitch within none [ label %catch, label %catch.2, label %catch.3 ] unwind to caller
|
2015-12-04 02:55:28 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch:
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 8, i8* null]
|
|
|
|
|
call void @throw() noreturn
|
|
|
|
|
br label %unreachable
|
2015-12-04 02:55:28 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.2:
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%c2 = catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 32, i8* null]
|
2015-12-04 02:55:28 +08:00
|
|
|
store i8 1, i8* %b
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
catchret from %c2 to label %cleanup
|
2015-12-04 02:55:28 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.3:
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%c3 = catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 64, i8* null]
|
2015-12-04 02:55:28 +08:00
|
|
|
store i8 2, i8* %b
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
catchret from %c3 to label %cleanup
|
2015-12-04 02:55:28 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cleanup:
|
|
|
|
|
%retval = phi i16 [ %call1, %if.then ], [ %call2, %if.else ], [ -1, %catch.2 ], [ -1, %catch.3 ]
|
|
|
|
|
ret i16 %retval
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unreachable:
|
|
|
|
|
unreachable
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; This test verifies the case where three funclet blocks all meet the old
|
|
|
|
|
; criteria to be placed at the end. The order of the blocks is not important
|
|
|
|
|
; for the purposes of this test. The failure mode is an infinite loop during
|
|
|
|
|
; compilation.
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-LABEL: .def test2;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-12-13 07:05:38 +08:00
|
|
|
declare void @g()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
define void @test3() optsize personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 to i8*) {
|
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
|
switch i32 undef, label %if.end57 [
|
|
|
|
|
i32 64, label %sw.bb
|
|
|
|
|
i32 128, label %sw.epilog
|
|
|
|
|
i32 256, label %if.then56
|
|
|
|
|
i32 1024, label %sw.bb
|
|
|
|
|
i32 4096, label %sw.bb33
|
|
|
|
|
i32 16, label %sw.epilog
|
|
|
|
|
i32 8, label %sw.epilog
|
|
|
|
|
i32 32, label %sw.bb44
|
|
|
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sw.bb:
|
|
|
|
|
unreachable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sw.bb33:
|
|
|
|
|
br i1 undef, label %if.end57, label %while.cond.i163.preheader
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while.cond.i163.preheader:
|
|
|
|
|
unreachable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sw.bb44:
|
|
|
|
|
%temp0 = load void ()*, void ()** undef
|
|
|
|
|
invoke void %temp0()
|
|
|
|
|
to label %if.end57 unwind label %catch.dispatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sw.epilog:
|
|
|
|
|
%temp1 = load i8*, i8** undef
|
|
|
|
|
br label %if.end57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.dispatch:
|
|
|
|
|
%cs = catchswitch within none [label %catch1, label %catch2, label %catch3] unwind to caller
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch1:
|
|
|
|
|
%c1 = catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 8, i8* null]
|
|
|
|
|
unreachable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch2:
|
|
|
|
|
%c2 = catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 32, i8* null]
|
|
|
|
|
unreachable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch3:
|
|
|
|
|
%c3 = catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 64, i8* null]
|
|
|
|
|
unreachable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if.then56:
|
|
|
|
|
call void @g()
|
|
|
|
|
br label %if.end57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if.end57:
|
|
|
|
|
ret void
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; This test exercises a complex case that produced an infinite loop during
|
|
|
|
|
; compilation when the two cases above did not. The multiple targets from the
|
|
|
|
|
; entry switch are not actually fundamental to the failure, but they are
|
|
|
|
|
; necessary to suppress various control flow optimizations that would prevent
|
|
|
|
|
; the conditions that lead to the failure.
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-LABEL: .def test3;
|
|
|
|
|
|