[PATCH] D146206: [LAA] Fix transitive analysis invalidation bug by implementing LoopAccessInfoManager::invalidate

[Arthur Eubanks via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

aeubanks added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/invalidation.ll:4
+
+; RUN: opt < %s -disable-output -debug-pass-manager -passes='function(require<access-info>,invalidate<aa>),print<access-info>,function(invalidate<access-info>)' 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK-AA
+;
----------------
bjope wrote:
> nikic wrote:
> > What is the extra invalidate at the end of the pipeline for?
> That was to see what happened when having an explicit invalidation of access-info. I.e. that the new invalidate function returns true in the early "// If not, give up now." exit, so that my patch wasn't lacking the check previously made by the default invalidate function.
> 
> Maybe nicer to extract that kind of test into a separate RUN-line?
yeah that seems better as a separate RUN

I also think that this can be simplified to just `-passes=require<access-info>,invalidate<aa>`


================
Comment at: llvm/test/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis/invalidation.ll:8-11
+; CHECK-AA-DAG: Running analysis: ScalarEvolutionAnalysis on foo
+; CHECK-AA-DAG: Running analysis: DominatorTreeAnalysis on foo
+; CHECK-AA-DAG: Running analysis: LoopAnalysis on foo
+; CHECK-AA-DAG: Running analysis: AAManager on foo
----------------
can we make this consistent by making the call order consistent?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D146206/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D146206