[LLVMdev] Missed optimization with indirectbr terminator

Cameron Zwarich zwarich at apple.com
Fri Jul 8 00:21:13 PDT 2011

On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris wrote:

> I'll try to inspect the assembler. Just a quick thought in the mean time, in the snippet I posted, if the backedge pointed directly to %19, other optimizations would likely notice that the loop could be removed entirely and replaced with a single addition. Do you think the code generator is able t
> o do this?

Why would you write a loop with an indirect branch where the loop can be deleted?


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list