[PATCH] D63489: [InstSimplify] LCSSA PHIs should not be simplified away

[Alexander via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

alex-t added a comment.

In D63489#1548720 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63489#1548720>, @rampitec wrote:

> In D63489#1548470 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63489#1548470>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
>
> > In D63489#1548451 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63489#1548451>, @alex-t wrote:
> >
> > > In D63489#1548288 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63489#1548288>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> > >
> > > > > This causes generation of incorrect code in AMDGPU backend.
> > > >
> > > > This sounds like some other check is missing elsewhere?
> > > >  What happens if you feed it such an ir as-if after this transform, but manually written?
> > > >  ("that will result in broken asm/crashes" is hopefully not the answer)
> > > >
> > > > That being said, why is `LCSSAPass` not sufficient?
> > > >  It's already supposed to undo transforms like this.
> > >
> > >
> > > It will result in syntactically correct asm and no crashes. In runtime we'll get incorrect result though :)
> > >  Adding LCSSA pass again later on is difficult in the sense of the pass dependencies.
> > >  So, it's better to fix the explicit bug in SimplifyPHI....
> >
> >
> > Aha, so it's not `-instsimplify` pass itself, but how it's used during transition into backend.
> >
> > 1. You certainly don't want to make this blacklist unconditional, it should still run when the `-instsimplify` pass itself is run. (+instsimplify test)
> > 2. How does this affect other targets (backends)? Does this need some TLI hook?
>
>
> The other condition should probably be TTI.hasBranchDivergence().


Sure! Good point. Thanks.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63489/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63489