[llvm] r328615 - [LoopUnroll][NFC] Remove redundant canPeel check

[Max Kazantsev via llvm-commits]

Author: mkazantsev
Date: Tue Mar 27 02:40:51 2018
New Revision: 328615

URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=328615&view=rev
Log:
[LoopUnroll][NFC] Remove redundant canPeel check

We check `canPeel` twice: when evaluating the number of iterations to be peeled
and within the method `peelLoop` that performs peeling. This method is only
executed if the calculated peel count is positive. Thus, the check in `peelLoop` can
never fail. This patch replaces this check with an assert.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44919
Reviewed By: fhahn

Modified:
    llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopUnrollPeel.cpp

Modified: llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopUnrollPeel.cpp
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopUnrollPeel.cpp?rev=328615&r1=328614&r2=328615&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopUnrollPeel.cpp (original)
+++ llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopUnrollPeel.cpp Tue Mar 27 02:40:51 2018
@@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static void cloneLoopBlocks(Loop *L, uns
 bool llvm::peelLoop(Loop *L, unsigned PeelCount, LoopInfo *LI,
                     ScalarEvolution *SE, DominatorTree *DT,
                     AssumptionCache *AC, bool PreserveLCSSA) {
-  if (!canPeel(L))
-    return false;
+  assert(PeelCount > 0 && "Attempt to peel out zero iterations?");
+  assert(canPeel(L) && "Attempt to peel a loop which is not peelable?");
 
   LoopBlocksDFS LoopBlocks(L);
   LoopBlocks.perform(LI);