[llvm] r186666 - Fix another assert failure very similar to PR16651's test case. This

[Chandler Carruth]

Author: chandlerc
Date: Fri Jul 19 05:57:32 2013
New Revision: 186666

URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=186666&view=rev
Log:
Fix another assert failure very similar to PR16651's test case. This
test case came from Benjamin and found the parallel bug in the vector
promotion code.

Modified:
    llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SROA.cpp
    llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/SROA/basictest.ll

Modified: llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SROA.cpp
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SROA.cpp?rev=186666&r1=186665&r2=186666&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SROA.cpp (original)
+++ llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SROA.cpp Fri Jul 19 05:57:32 2013
@@ -1539,6 +1539,8 @@ static bool isVectorPromotionViableForSl
     }
     if (!canConvertValue(DL, STy, SliceTy))
       return false;
+  } else {
+    return false;
   }
 
   return true;

Modified: llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/SROA/basictest.ll
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/SROA/basictest.ll?rev=186666&r1=186665&r2=186666&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/SROA/basictest.ll (original)
+++ llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/SROA/basictest.ll Fri Jul 19 05:57:32 2013
@@ -1318,12 +1318,12 @@ define void @PR15805(i1 %a, i1 %b) {
   ret void
 }
 
-define void @PR16651(i8* %a) {
+define void @PR16651.1(i8* %a) {
 ; This test case caused a crash due to the volatile memcpy in combination with
 ; lowering to integer loads and stores of a width other than that of the original
 ; memcpy.
 ;
-; CHECK-LABEL: @PR16651(
+; CHECK-LABEL: @PR16651.1(
 ; CHECK: alloca i16
 ; CHECK: alloca i8
 ; CHECK: alloca i8
@@ -1337,3 +1337,23 @@ entry:
   load i8* %b.gep, align 2
   unreachable
 }
+
+define void @PR16651.2() {
+; This test case caused a crash due to failing to promote given a select that
+; can't be speculated. It shouldn't be promoted, but we missed that fact when
+; analyzing whether we could form a vector promotion because that code didn't
+; bail on select instructions.
+;
+; CHECK-LABEL: @PR16651.2(
+; CHECK: alloca <2 x float>
+; CHECK: ret void
+
+entry:
+  %tv1 = alloca { <2 x float>, <2 x float> }, align 8
+  %0 = getelementptr { <2 x float>, <2 x float> }* %tv1, i64 0, i32 1
+  store <2 x float> undef, <2 x float>* %0, align 8
+  %1 = getelementptr inbounds { <2 x float>, <2 x float> }* %tv1, i64 0, i32 1, i64 0
+  %cond105.in.i.i = select i1 undef, float* null, float* %1
+  %cond105.i.i = load float* %cond105.in.i.i, align 8
+  ret void
+}