[PATCH] Improving LowerSwitch behavior for contiguous ranges
hayarms at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 07:38:37 PDT 2014
If nobody else have comments about this patch or thinks is not worth it is
it possible to commit it?
I don't have commit access :)
2014-06-12 0:22 GMT+01:00 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>:
> I'm updating the patch to also remove the default basic block if it ends
> up being dead after switch lowering (no predecessors)
> 2014-06-11 20:34 GMT+01:00 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>:
>> I addressed your suggestion in this patch.
>> It was quite easy to add and can be useful in general, so thanks!
>> I also added a test that tests this kind of optimization being applied.
>> 2014-06-11 18:37 GMT+01:00 Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de>:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 05:28:05PM +0100, Marcello Maggioni wrote:
>>> > Yeah, it is suboptimal, it doesn't take into consideration the fact
>>> > the default is unreachable.
>>> > I'll a look at it later to see if it is easy to also take into
>>> > consideration this case and add it to the patch + test for the
>>> Thanks. Please don't take this as hold up for pushing the original
>>> patch, it can just as well be a follow-up commit.
>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-commits