Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "00977".
Did you mean:
0977
2011 Aug 26
2
[LLVMdev] Dead node removal in DAGCombiner
...hey too may now be dead
or may have a
00972 // reduced number of uses, allowing other xforms.
00973 if (N->use_empty() && N != &Dummy) {
00974 for (unsigned i = 0, e = N->getNumOperands(); i != e; ++i)
00975 AddToWorkList(N->getOperand(i).getNode());
00976
00977 DAG.DeleteNode(N);
00978 continue;
00979 }
Or is it one of the corner cases mentioned in SelectionDAGISel.cpp:644?
00644 // Skip dead nodes. DAGCombiner is expected to eliminate
all dead nodes,
00645 // but there are currently some corner cases that it
misses. Also, th...
2011 Aug 26
0
[LLVMdev] Dead node removal in DAGCombiner
...y have a
> 00972 // reduced number of uses, allowing other xforms.
> 00973 if (N->use_empty()&& N !=&Dummy) {
> 00974 for (unsigned i = 0, e = N->getNumOperands(); i != e; ++i)
> 00975 AddToWorkList(N->getOperand(i).getNode());
> 00976
> 00977 DAG.DeleteNode(N);
> 00978 continue;
> 00979 }
I suspect they could be removed. Probably a helper function should be added
for this and used all over the place. Also, the RAUW earlier can cause nodes
to be unified (due to CSE). Probably the WorkListRemover class should add...
2011 Aug 27
3
[LLVMdev] OpenCL Backend
...uses, allowing other xforms.
> >> 00973 ? ? if (N->use_empty()&& ?N !=&Dummy) {
> >> 00974 ? ? ? for (unsigned i = 0, e = N->getNumOperands(); i != e; ++i)
> >> 00975 ? ? ? ? AddToWorkList(N->getOperand(i).getNode());
> >> 00976
> >> 00977 ? ? ? DAG.DeleteNode(N);
> >> 00978 ? ? ? continue;
> >> 00979 ? ? }
> >
> > I suspect they could be removed. ?Probably a helper function should be added
> > for this and used all over the place. ?Also, the RAUW earlier can cause nodes
> > to be unified (du...