[PATCH] Constant Hoisting Pass

[Eric Christopher]

I was being silly :)

-eric

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com> wrote:
> Yeah, in this case I would prefer a simpler approach that just uses the debug
> location from one of the original instructions where that constant came from.
>
> -Juergen
>
> On Jan 23, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> *nod* It's definitely problematic, but at least then it will be
>> associated with a line that could have produced the code rather than
>> some other random line that doesn't materialize a constant... if I
>> could give you an ideal world we might ensure that it's the location
>> of the first use that post-dominates the new constant materialization
>> block/instruction :) That's probably too much work though.
>>
>> -eric
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Juergen Ributzka <juergen at apple.com> wrote:
>>> Sure, I can modify the patch to do that instead. I am just wondering how
>>> that could affect the debugger,
>>> because after hoisting the constant might be in a different basic block than
>>> the first use?
>>>
>>> -Juergen
>>>
>>> On Jan 23, 2014, at 3:31 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> For the hoisted constants I'd prefer you pick the instruction of the
>>> earliest such use of the constant in the function if possible. That
>>> will a) keep it closer, and b) hopefully match up with some of the
>>> uses.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>