-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[DemoteRegToStack] Use correct variable for branch instructions in DemoteRegToStack #113798
Conversation
Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project! This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified. If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page. If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers. If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide. You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums. |
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-transforms Author: Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen (eirikba) ChangesI happened to see this code, and it seems "obviously" wrong to me. So here's what I think this code is supposed to look like. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113798.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/DemoteRegToStack.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/DemoteRegToStack.cpp
index 3a33b591d35582..6337913cdbbeb7 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/DemoteRegToStack.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/DemoteRegToStack.cpp
@@ -55,8 +55,8 @@ AllocaInst *llvm::DemoteRegToStack(Instruction &I, bool VolatileLoads,
for (unsigned i = 0; i < CBI->getNumSuccessors(); i++) {
auto *Succ = CBI->getSuccessor(i);
if (!Succ->getSinglePredecessor()) {
- assert(isCriticalEdge(II, i) && "Expected a critical edge!");
- [[maybe_unused]] BasicBlock *BB = SplitCriticalEdge(II, i);
+ assert(isCriticalEdge(CBI, i) && "Expected a critical edge!");
+ [[maybe_unused]] BasicBlock *BB = SplitCriticalEdge(CBI, i);
assert(BB && "Unable to split critical edge.");
}
}
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice catch!
@eirikba Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project! Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may receive a report in an email or a comment on this PR. Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or infrastructure issues. How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here. If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself. This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again. If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done! |
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Full details are available at: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/24/builds/2307 Here is the relevant piece of the build log for the reference
|
…moteRegToStack (llvm#113798) I happened to see this code, and it seems "obviously" wrong to me. So here's what I think this code is supposed to look like.
I happened to see this code, and it seems "obviously" wrong to me. So here's what I think this code is supposed to look like.