Summary:
If a block has all incoming values with the same MemoryAccess (ignoring
incoming values from unreachable blocks), then use that incoming
MemoryAccess and do not create a Phi in the first place.
Revert IDF work-around added in rL372673; it should not be required unless
the Def inserted is the first in its block.
The patch also cleans up a series of tests, added during the many
iterations on insertDef.
The patch also fixes PR43438.
The same issue that occurs in insertDef with "adding phis, hence the IDF of
Phis is needed", can also occur in fixupDefs: the `getPreviousRecursive`
call only adds Phis walking on the predecessor edges, which means there
may be the case of a Phi added walking the CFG "backwards" which
triggers the needs for an additional Phi in successor blocks.
Such Phis are added during fixupDefs only in the presence of unreachable
blocks.
Hence this highlights the need to avoid adding Phis in blocks with
unreachable predecessors in the first place.
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67995
llvm-svn: 372932
Summary:
The original assumption for the insertDef method was that it would not
materialize Defs out of no-where, hence it will not insert phis needed
after inserting a Def.
However, when cloning an instruction (use case used in LICM), we do
materialize Defs "out of no-where". If the block receiving a Def has at
least one other Def, then no processing is needed. If the block just
received its first Def, we must check where Phi placement is needed.
The only new usage of insertDef is in LICM, hence the trigger for the bug.
But the original goal of the method also fails to apply for the move()
method. If we move a Def from the entry point of a diamond to either the
left or right blocks, then the merge block must add a phi.
While this usecase does not currently occur, or may be viewed as an
incorrect transformation, MSSA must behave corectly given the scenario.
Resolves PR40749 and PR40754.
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, jdoerfert, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58652
llvm-svn: 355040