[llvm] r175604 - Add support to the two-address pass for updating LiveIntervals in many of the
Jakob Stoklund Olesen
stoklund at 2pi.dk
Wed Feb 20 14:40:13 PST 2013
On Feb 20, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote:
>
>>> + // Udpate LiveIntervals.
>>> + if (LIS) {
>>> + if (MBBI != MBB->begin())
>>> + --MBBI;
>>> + LIS->repairIntervalsInRange(MBB, MBBI, EndMBBI, OrigRegs);
>>> + }
>>
>> This looks odd to me.
>>
>> If it is correct to not decrement MBBI at begin(), shouldn't it be safe to always always skip the decrement?
>>
>> Also, wouldn't it be easier if repairIntervalsInRange() did it's own reversing, instead of making all the callers do it?
>>
>> What exactly is the meaning of the range passed to repairIntervalsInRange()? Could you describe that in the function declaration's comment, please?
>>
>> It would be natural to me if you passed it just the range of new or changed instructions. If the algorithm needs to find anchor points, that should be a hidden implementation detail.
>
> I fixed this (and the SlotIndexes case) in r175673. I should probably still add comments explaining their meaning.
Thanks.
A comment would still be useful.
/jakob
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list