It is possible to have a fallthrough MBB prior to MBB placement. The original
addition of the BB would result in reordering the BB as not preceding the
successor. Because of the fallthrough nature of the BB, we could end up
executing incorrect code or even a constant pool island! Insert the spliced BB
into the same location to avoid that.
Thanks to Tim Northover for invaluable hints and Fiora for the discussion on
what may have been occurring!
llvm-svn: 264454
The two changes together weakened the test and caused a regression with division
handling in MSVC mode. They were applied to avoid an assertion being triggered
in the block frequency analysis. However, the underlying problem was simply
being masked rather than solved properly. Address the actual underlying problem
and revert the changes. Rather than analyze the cause of the assertion, the
division failure was assumed to be an overflow.
The underlying issue was a subtle bug in the BB construction in the emission of
the div-by-zero check (WIN__DBZCHK). We did not construct the proper successor
information in the basic blocks, nor did we update the PHIs associated with the
basic block when we split them. This would result in assertions being triggered
in the block frequency analysis pass.
Although the original tests are being removed, the tests themselves performed
very little in terms of validation but merely tested that we did not assert when
generating code. Update this with new tests that actually ensure that we do not
regress on the code generation.
llvm-svn: 263714
Saleem Abdulrasool