The personality routine currently lives in the LandingPadInst.
This isn't desirable because:
- All LandingPadInsts in the same function must have the same
personality routine. This means that each LandingPadInst beyond the
first has an operand which produces no additional information.
- There is ongoing work to introduce EH IR constructs other than
LandingPadInst. Moving the personality routine off of any one
particular Instruction and onto the parent function seems a lot better
than have N different places a personality function can sneak onto an
exceptional function.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10429
llvm-svn: 239940
handles terminator instructions.
The inline cost analysis inheritted some pretty rough handling of
terminator insts from the original cost analysis, and then made it much,
much worse by factoring all of the important analyses into a separate
instruction visitor. That instruction visitor never visited the
terminator.
This works fine for things like conditional branches, but for many other
things we simply computed The Wrong Value. First example are
unconditional branches, which should be free but were counted as full
cost. This is most significant for conditional branches where the
condition simplifies and folds during inlining. We paid a 1 instruction
tax on every branch in a straight line specialized path. =[
Oh, we also claimed that the unreachable instruction had cost.
But it gets worse. Let's consider invoke. We never applied the call
penalty. We never accounted for the cost of the arguments. Nope. Worse
still, we didn't handle the *correctness* constraints of not inlining
recursive invokes, or exception throwing returns_twice functions. Oops.
See PR18206. Sadly, PR18206 requires yet another fix, but this
refactoring is at least a huge step in that direction.
llvm-svn: 197215
David Majnemer