[PATCH] D17203: [LICM] Hoist and sink entire inner loops.

[Philip Reames via llvm-commits]

reames added a comment.

Taking a step back, can you give a motivating example on why we might want to do this?  Your tests look like they'd be caught by loop-unswitch and LICM together, but I suspect that's just because the tests are (correctly) simple.


================
Comment at: test/Transforms/LICM/inner-loop-dont-sink.ll:5
@@ +4,3 @@
+entry:
+; CHECK-LABEL: entry:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %outer.header
----------------
jmolloy wrote:
> We generally only use CHECK-LABEL: for delineating between multiple testcases. Its only purpose is to stop llvm-lit running from one testcase to another.
> 
> As you've only got one testcase here, you should just use CHECK:.
Er, this disagrees with quite a few other tests.  :)  Using CHECK-LABEL to ensure things are in the right basic block seems entirely reasonable to me.  


http://reviews.llvm.org/D17203