[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] RegAlloc: Fix failure on undef use when all registers are reserved (PR #119647)

[Paul Kirth via llvm-branch-commits]

================
@@ -982,16 +982,23 @@ void RegAllocFastImpl::allocVirtRegUndef(MachineOperand &MO) {
   if (!shouldAllocateRegister(VirtReg))
     return;
 
-  LiveRegMap::const_iterator LRI = findLiveVirtReg(VirtReg);
+  LiveRegMap::iterator LRI = findLiveVirtReg(VirtReg);
   MCPhysReg PhysReg;
   if (LRI != LiveVirtRegs.end() && LRI->PhysReg) {
     PhysReg = LRI->PhysReg;
   } else {
     const TargetRegisterClass &RC = *MRI->getRegClass(VirtReg);
     ArrayRef<MCPhysReg> AllocationOrder = RegClassInfo.getOrder(&RC);
-    // FIXME: This can happen, and should fall back to a reserved entry in RC.
-    assert(!AllocationOrder.empty() && "Allocation order must not be empty");
-    PhysReg = AllocationOrder[0];
+    if (AllocationOrder.empty()) {
+      // All registers in the class were reserved.
+      //
+      // It might be OK to take any entry from the class as this is an undef
+      // use, but accepting this would give different behavior than greedy and
+      // basic.
+      PhysReg = getErrorAssignment(*LRI, *MO.getParent(), RC);
+      LRI->Error = true;
+    } else
+      PhysReg = AllocationOrder[0];
----------------
ilovepi wrote:

Up the stack you're using `AllocationOrder.front()`. Either way is fine, but I think we should try to keep them consistent.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119647