[llvm-commits] [llvm] r149070 - in /llvm/trunk: lib/CodeGen/MachineBasicBlock.cpp test/CodeGen/ARM/tail-dup.ll

[Jakob Stoklund Olesen]

On Jan 26, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Chad Rosier wrote:

> --- llvm/trunk/lib/CodeGen/MachineBasicBlock.cpp (original)
> +++ llvm/trunk/lib/CodeGen/MachineBasicBlock.cpp Thu Jan 26 12:24:25 2012
> @@ -535,13 +535,12 @@
>   if (TII->AnalyzeBranch(*this, TBB, FBB, Cond)) {
>     // If we couldn't analyze the branch, examine the last instruction.
>     // If the block doesn't end in a known control barrier, assume fallthrough
> -    // is possible. The isPredicable check is needed because this code can be
> +    // is possible. The isPredicated check is needed because this code can be
>     // called during IfConversion, where an instruction which is normally a
>     // Barrier is predicated and thus no longer an actual control barrier. This
>     // is over-conservative though, because if an instruction isn't actually
>     // predicated we could still treat it like a barrier.
> -    return empty() || !back().isBarrier() ||
> -           back().isPredicable();
> +    return empty() || !back().isBarrier() || TII->isPredicated(&back());
>   }

Is the comment still correct now? Is the check still over-conservative?

/jakob