Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "lcssa48".
Did you mean:
lcssa
2011 Nov 09
3
[LLVMdev] [LLVM, loop-unswitch tests] preserve-analyses.ll, strange PHI instruction.
Hi all.
Looking at test/Transforms/LoopUnswitch/preserve-analyses.ll, I found
improper phi instruction at string #122:
%call.i25.lcssa48 = phi i8* [ %call.i25, %if.then31.i.i ], [ %call.i25,
%if.then31.i.i ] ; <i8*> [#uses=0]
Is it trick or mistake?
-Stepan.
2011 Nov 09
0
[LLVMdev] [LLVM, loop-unswitch tests] preserve-analyses.ll, strange PHI instruction.
Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Looking at test/Transforms/LoopUnswitch/preserve-analyses.ll, I found
> improper phi instruction at string #122:
> %call.i25.lcssa48 = phi i8* [ %call.i25, %if.then31.i.i ], [ %call.i25,
> %if.then31.i.i ] ;<i8*> [#uses=0]
> Is it trick or mistake?
What's improper about it?
The block may have two predecessors, both of which are the same block
(consider a switch statement with "case 3: case 4: code;"...
2011 Nov 09
1
[LLVMdev] [LLVM, loop-unswitch tests] preserve-analyses.ll, strange PHI instruction.
...g one predecessor (if it exists) to switch's
parent block?
-Stepan.
Nick Lewycky wrote:
> Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote:
>> Hi all.
>>
>> Looking at test/Transforms/LoopUnswitch/preserve-analyses.ll, I found
>> improper phi instruction at string #122:
>> %call.i25.lcssa48 = phi i8* [ %call.i25, %if.then31.i.i ], [ %call.i25,
>> %if.then31.i.i ] ;<i8*> [#uses=0]
>> Is it trick or mistake?
>
> What's improper about it?
>
> The block may have two predecessors, both of which are the same block
> (consider a switch statement with &quo...