[LLVMdev] LiveInterval Questions

[David Greene]

I had been assuming that give a LiveRange a, a.valno->def, if
valid, would be the same as a.start.  But this is apparently not
always the case.  For example:

    Predecessors according to CFG: 0x839d130 (#3) 0x8462780 (#35)
308	%reg1051 = MOV64rr %reg1227<kill>
312	%reg1052 = MOV64rr %reg1228<kill>
316	%reg1053 = MOV64rr %reg1229<kill>
320	%reg1054 = MOV64rr %reg1230<kill>
324	%reg1055<dead> = LEA64r %reg1047, 1, %reg1053, 0
328	%reg1135 = MOVSX64rr32 %reg1025
332	%reg1136 = MOV64rr %reg1135<kill>
336	%reg1136 = ADD64ri32 %reg1136, -4, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>
340	TEST64rr %reg1136<kill>, %reg1136, %EFLAGS<imp-def>
344	JNS mbb<file solve.f, line 23, in loop at depth 1, bb16,0x83a2c70>, 
%EFLAGS<imp-use,kill>

Here we have the curious case of %reg1055 being defined and then immediately
killed.  It's a dead assignment.  Why it wasn't removed I don't know, but the 
LiveInterval looks like this:

%reg1055,0 = [308,348:0 [0])  0 at 326-(326 326)

The valno->def is 326, which is what I would expect given the instruction
numbering above.

So why does the live range extend throughout the entire basic block?

%reg1055 doesn't appear anywhere else in the program so it shouldn't be
live-in to the block.

A related question: LiveRange::valno is a single value, correct?  In other
words it doesn't point to an array or anything, right?

If so, then isn't LiveInterval::Ranges and LiveInterval::VNInfoList redundant?
What's in VNInfoList that's not in the valno member of the Ranges elements,
and vice-versa?

                                                 -Dave