[PATCH] D94995: Loop peeling: check that latch is conditional branch

[Joseph Tremoulet via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

JosephTremoulet updated this revision to Diff 317850.
JosephTremoulet added a comment.

- Match comment to code


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D94995/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D94995

Files:
  llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopPeel.cpp
  llvm/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop-conditions.ll


Index: llvm/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop-conditions.ll
===================================================================
--- llvm/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop-conditions.ll
+++ llvm/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/peel-loop-conditions.ll
@@ -1140,5 +1140,35 @@
   ret void
 }
 
+; Invoke is not a conditional branch that we can optimize,
+; so this shouldn't be peeled at all.  This is a reproducer
+; for a bug where evaluating the loop would fail an assertion.
+define void @test17() personality i8* undef{
+; CHECK-LABEL: @test17(
+; CHECK-NEXT:  body:
+; CHECK-NEXT:    br label [[LOOP:%.*]]
+; CHECK:       loop:
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[CONST:%.*]] = phi i64 [ -33, [[LOOP]] ], [ -20, [[BODY:%.*]] ]
+; CHECK-NEXT:    invoke void @f1()
+; CHECK-NEXT:    to label [[LOOP]] unwind label [[EH_UNW_LOOPEXIT:%.*]]
+; CHECK:       eh.Unw.loopexit:
+; CHECK-NEXT:    [[LPAD_LOOPEXIT:%.*]] = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
+; CHECK-NEXT:    catch i8* null
+; CHECK-NEXT:    ret void
+;
+body:
+  br label %loop
+
+loop:
+  %const = phi i64 [ -33, %loop ], [ -20, %body ]
+  invoke void @f1()
+  to label %loop unwind label %eh.Unw.loopexit
+
+eh.Unw.loopexit:
+  %lpad.loopexit = landingpad { i8*, i32 }
+  catch i8* null
+  ret void
+}
+
 declare void @init()
 declare void @sink()
Index: llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopPeel.cpp
===================================================================
--- llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopPeel.cpp
+++ llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopPeel.cpp
@@ -115,7 +115,12 @@
   // This can be an indication of two different things:
   // 1) The loop is not rotated.
   // 2) The loop contains irreducible control flow that involves the latch.
-  if (L->getLoopLatch() != L->getExitingBlock())
+  const BasicBlock *Latch = L->getLoopLatch();
+  if (Latch != L->getExitingBlock())
+    return false;
+
+  // Peeling is only supported if the latch is a branch.
+  if (!isa<BranchInst>(Latch->getTerminator()))
     return false;
 
   return true;


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: D94995.317850.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1972 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20210120/54797c27/attachment.bin>