The test case feeds the following into InstCombine's visitSelect:
%tobool8 = icmp ne i32 0, 0
%phitmp = select i1 %tobool8, i32 3, i32 0
Then instcombine replaces the right side of the switch with 0, doesn't notice
that nothing changes and tries again indefinitely.
This fixes PR12897.
llvm-svn: 157587
Attribute bits above 1<<30 are now encoded correctly. Additionally,
the encoding/decoding functionality has been hoisted to helper functions
in Attributes.h in an effort to help the encoding/decoding to stay in
sync with the Attribute bitcode definitions.
llvm-svn: 157581
Implemented IntItem - the wrapper around APInt. Why not to use APInt item directly right now?
1. It will very difficult to implement case ranges as series of small patches. We got several large and heavy patches. Each patch will about 90-120 kb. If you replace ConstantInt with APInt in SwitchInst you will need to changes at the same time all Readers,Writers and absolutely all passes that uses SwitchInst.
2. We can implement APInt pool inside and save memory space. E.g. we use several switches that works with 256 bit items (switch on signatures, or strings). We can avoid value duplicates in this case.
3. IntItem can be easyly easily replaced with APInt.
4. Currenly we can interpret IntItem both as ConstantInt and as APInt. It allows to provide SwitchInst methods that works with ConstantInt for non-updated passes.
Why I need it right now? Currently I need to update SimplifyCFG pass (EqualityComparisons). I need to work with APInts directly a lot, so peaces of code
ConstantInt *V = ...;
if (V->getValue().ugt(AnotherV->getValue()) {
...
}
will look awful. Much more better this way:
IntItem V = ConstantIntVal->getValue();
if (AnotherV < V) {
}
Of course any reviews are welcome.
P.S.: I'm also going to rename ConstantRangesSet to IntegersSubset, and CRSBuilder to IntegersSubsetMapping (allows to map individual subsets of integers to the BasicBlocks).
Since in future these classes will founded on APInt, it will possible to use them in more generic ways.
llvm-svn: 157576
replicating the code for every place it's needed, we instead generate a function
that does that for us. This function is local to the executable, so there
shouldn't be any writing violations.
llvm-svn: 157564
This comes up in the begin/end calls of a range-for (see the included test
case). Other suggestions are welcome, though this seems to do the trick without
regressing anything.
llvm-svn: 157553
Tobias Grosser