[PATCH] D24805: [GVNSink] Initial GVNSink prototype

[Daniel Berlin via llvm-commits]

>
>
> ----------------
> dberlin wrote:
> > I'm curious why you think you need stable sort here as opposed to regular
> >
> I don't. Changed.
>
>
(i'm offsite today, but someone should test this in newgvn too if i'm
right).

Do we allow switch statements with multiple edges to ourself?

ie

bb1:

switch <whatever> [
i32 0 : label bb1
i32 1: label bb1 ]


(which, after propagation,  could cause a phi with different operands and
the same incoming blocks)
If so, either we need stable sorts, or a better ordering of incoming
blocks, because the pointer equality we use will not definitely sort them
into a consistent order
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20170525/4de1efa2/attachment.html>