[PATCH] D73423: [LV] Do not try to sink dead instructions.

[Gil Rapaport via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

gilr added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp:7163
+  // ingredients whose recipe we'll need to record. Dead instructions do not
+  // need sinking and we remove them from SinkAfter.
+  for (auto &Entry : make_early_inc_range(SinkAfter)) {
----------------
How about cleaning sink-after once, immediately after calling collectTriviallyDeadInstrucions()?


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp:7165
+  for (auto &Entry : make_early_inc_range(SinkAfter)) {
+    if (DeadInstructions.find(Entry.first) == DeadInstructions.end()) {
+      RecipeBuilder.recordRecipeOf(Entry.first);
----------------
DeadInstructions.count()?


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp:7199
   // control flow is preserved, we should keep them.
   auto &ConditionalAssumes = Legal->getConditionalAssumes();
   DeadInstructions.insert(ConditionalAssumes.begin(), ConditionalAssumes.end());
----------------
Independently, this belongs in collectTriviallyDeadInstructions(), right?


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp:7231
       if (isa<BranchInst>(Instr) ||
           DeadInstructions.find(Instr) != DeadInstructions.end())
         continue;
----------------
DeadInstructions.count()?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D73423/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D73423