[PATCH] Improving LowerSwitch behavior for contiguous ranges

[Marcello Maggioni]

If nobody else have comments about this patch or thinks is not worth it is
it possible to commit it?

I don't have commit access :)

Marcello


2014-06-12 0:22 GMT+01:00 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>:

> I'm updating the patch to also remove the default basic block if it ends
> up being dead after switch lowering (no predecessors)
>
> Marcello
>
> 2014-06-11 20:34 GMT+01:00 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>:
>
> Joerg,
>>
>> I addressed your suggestion in this patch.
>> It was quite easy to add and can be useful in general, so thanks!
>>
>> I also added a test that tests this kind of optimization being applied.
>>
>> Marcello
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-11 18:37 GMT+01:00 Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de>:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 05:28:05PM +0100, Marcello Maggioni wrote:
>>> > Yeah, it is suboptimal, it doesn't take into consideration the fact
>>> that
>>> > the default is unreachable.
>>> >
>>> > I'll a look at it later to see if it is easy to also take into
>>> > consideration this case and add it to the patch + test for the
>>> condition.
>>>
>>> Thanks. Please don't take this as hold up for pushing the original
>>> patch, it can just as well be a follow-up commit.
>>>
>>> Joerg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140612/eddb7758/attachment.html>