I did this a long time ago with a janky python script, but now
clang-format has built-in support for this. I fed clang-format every
line with a #include and let it re-sort things according to the precise
LLVM rules for include ordering baked into clang-format these days.
I've reverted a number of files where the results of sorting includes
isn't healthy. Either places where we have legacy code relying on
particular include ordering (where possible, I'll fix these separately)
or where we have particular formatting around #include lines that
I didn't want to disturb in this patch.
This patch is *entirely* mechanical. If you get merge conflicts or
anything, just ignore the changes in this patch and run clang-format
over your #include lines in the files.
Sorry for any noise here, but it is important to keep these things
stable. I was seeing an increasing number of patches with irrelevant
re-ordering of #include lines because clang-format was used. This patch
at least isolates that churn, makes it easy to skip when resolving
conflicts, and gets us to a clean baseline (again).
llvm-svn: 304787
One case in BranchRelaxation did not compute liveins after creating a
new block. This is catched by existing tests with an upcoming commit
that will improve MachineVerifier checking of livein lists.
llvm-svn: 304049
Re-commit r303937 + r303949 as they were not the cause for the build
failures.
We do not track liveness of reserved registers so adding them to the
liveins list in computeLiveIns() was completely unnecessary.
llvm-svn: 303970
We had various variants of defining dump() functions in LLVM. Normalize
them (this should just consistently implement the things discussed in
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2014-January/034323.html
For reference:
- Public headers should just declare the dump() method but not use
LLVM_DUMP_METHOD or #if !defined(NDEBUG) || defined(LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP)
- The definition of a dump method should look like this:
#if !defined(NDEBUG) || defined(LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP)
LLVM_DUMP_METHOD void MyClass::dump() {
// print stuff to dbgs()...
}
#endif
llvm-svn: 293359
It's likely if a conditional branch needs to be expanded, the following
unconditional branch will also need expansion. By expanding the
unconditional branch first, the conditional branch can be simply
inverted to jump over the inserted indirect branch block. If the
conditional branch is expanded first, it results in an additional
branch.
This avoids test regressions in future commits.
llvm-svn: 285722
Chandler Carruth