than tweaking existing ASTs, since we were (*gasp*) stomping on ASTs
within templates. I'm glad we found this little stick of TNT early...
llvm-svn: 89475
constant pool ranges, as CPEIsInRange() makes conservative assumptions about
the potential alignment changes from branch adjustments. The verification,
on the other hand, runs after those branch adjustments are made, so the
effects on alignment are known and already taken into account. The sanity
check in verify should check the range directly instead.
llvm-svn: 89473
same object to be a non-capture; Duncan pointed out a way that such
a comparison could be a capture.
Make the rule that considers a comparison against null more specific,
and only consider noalias return values compared against null. This
still supports test/Transforms/GVN/nonescaping-malloc.ll, and is not
susceptible to the problem Duncan pointed out with noalias arguments.
llvm-svn: 89468
Makes '--comma-separated val1,val2' mean the same thing as
'--comma-separated=val1,val2' (that is, 'val1' and 'val2' are not lumped
together as 'val1,val2'). Also declutters the main loop a bit.
llvm-svn: 89463
tests/Transforms/InstCombine/shufflemask-undef.ll. If
anyone cares, the use of 2*e here (and the equivalent
all over the place in instcombine) seems wrong, though
harmless: it should really be twice the length of the
input vector. I think shufflevector used to require
that the mask have the same length as the input, but I
don't think that's true any more. I don't care enough
about vectors to do anything about this...
llvm-svn: 89456
which was an expensive checks failure due to a bug in the checking. This
patch in essence reverts the original fix for PR3393, and refixes it by a
tweak to the way expensive checking is done.
llvm-svn: 89454
because if the results from getUnderlyingObject match, the values must
be from the same underlying object, even if we don't know what that
object is.
llvm-svn: 89434
A::f
that occurs within a non-static member function with a type-dependent
"this", don't consider this to be a case for introduction of an
implicit "(*this)." to refer to a specific member function unless we
know (at template definition time) that A is a base class of *this.
There is some disagreement here between GCC, EDG, and Clang about the
handling of this case. I believe that Clang now has the correct,
literal interpretation of the standard, but have asked for
clarification (c++std-core-15483).
llvm-svn: 89425
careful about crazy methods of capturing pointers using comparisons.
Comparisons of identified objects with null in the default address
space are not captures. And, comparisons of two pointers within the
same identified object are not captures.
llvm-svn: 89421
Evan Cheng