search for: exitcond28

...ph, %bb8.outer ] ; <int> [#uses=1] %sum.1 = add int %i.0.pn, %sum.0.pn ; <int> [#uses=3] %exitcond = seteq uint %indvar, 3 ; <bool> [#uses=1] br bool %exitcond, label %bb10, label %bb3 bb10: ; preds = %bb8 %indvar.next27 = add uint %indvar26, 1 ; <uint> [#uses=2] %exitcond28 = seteq uint %indvar.next27, 10 ; <bool> [#uses=1] br bool %exitcond28, label %bb16, label %bb8.outer bb16: ; preds = %bb10 ret int %sum.1 } ------------------------------------------------------------- And I did "opt -reg2mem" for the bitcode, which is emitted like this: -----...

...indvar_next= indvar+ 1; > indvar= indvar_next; > sum_0_pn = sum_1; > i_0_pn = 2; > sum_1 = i_0_pn + sum_0_pn; /* LOOK HERE >*/ > //brlabel %bb8 > } > //bb10: > indvar_next27 = indvar26 + 1; > //%exitcond28 = setequint%indvar_next27, 10 > indvar26 = indvar_next27; > sum_0_pn_ph = sum_1; > //brbool %exitcond28, label %bb16, label %bb8_outer > } > //bb16: > return sum_1; >} > >int main() { > printf("%d\n", foo()); >} >$ gcc t.c >t.c: I...

Dear Prof.Adve and Bill, I deeply appreciate your comments and concerns. (Please forgive my late response. I've tried some more cases to make this issue) As Prof.Adve mentioned, I need to explain exactly what my problem is, but I have no good ability that I can explain it in this plain text space. For this reason, I made a .pdf file and linked it as follows:

Hi Steve it seems the general consensus is that the patch feels like a work-around for a problem with LSR (and possibly other loop transformations) that introduces redundant instructions. It is probably best to file a bug and a few of your test cases. Thanks Gerolf > On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Steve King via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015