The logic at the end of TailDuplicate seems dead - can we remove it?

[Rafael Espíndola via llvm-commits]

I am terrible sorry. This is completely out of my memory and not
committing a test was an horrible mistake.

So the patch LGTM. If we ever find out what it was about we can code
it again, and this time test it.

Cheers,
Rafael


On 31 March 2016 at 14:31, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote:
> There's some code near the end of TailDuplicate to handle "the nasty
> case in that we duplicated a block that is part of a loop into some but
> not all of its predecessors."
>
> I noticed that this isn't covered by our existing tests and spent some
> time trying to come up with an example it actually hits. I tried hand
> rolling something based on the explanation in the comment, but couldn't
> get anything that didn't abort tail duplication earlier for one reason
> or another.
>
> Then, I applied the attached patch (with tail-dup-size cranked up so
> this would fire more) and ran a bootstrap of clang and the nightly test
> suite - the assert was never hit.
>
> I suspect that things have changed and the situation this code handles
> can't happen anymore. Should we remove it?
>