From 11f15dbb287b5d9aa63913f84ce931569a5ebdf3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Chris Lattner Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:13:05 +0000 Subject: change simplifycfg to not duplicate 'unwind' instructions. Hopefully this will increase the likelihood of common code getting sunk towards the unwind. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@83996 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8 --- test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/invoke_unwind.ll | 21 ++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/invoke_unwind.ll') diff --git a/test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/invoke_unwind.ll b/test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/invoke_unwind.ll index da6e3db..bbd779b 100644 --- a/test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/invoke_unwind.ll +++ b/test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/invoke_unwind.ll @@ -1,10 +1,9 @@ -; This testcase checks to see if the simplifycfg pass is converting invoke -; instructions to call instructions if the handler just rethrows the exception. - ; RUN: opt < %s -simplifycfg -S | FileCheck %s declare void @bar() +; This testcase checks to see if the simplifycfg pass is converting invoke +; instructions to call instructions if the handler just rethrows the exception. define i32 @test1() { ; CHECK: @test1 ; CHECK-NEXT: call void @bar() @@ -16,3 +15,19 @@ Ok: ; preds = %0 Rethrow: ; preds = %0 unwind } + + +; Verify that simplifycfg isn't duplicating 'unwind' instructions. Doing this +; is bad because it discourages commoning. +define i32 @test2(i1 %c) { +; CHECK: @test2 +; CHECK: T: +; CHECK-NEXT: call void @bar() +; CHECK-NEXT: br label %F + br i1 %c, label %T, label %F +T: + call void @bar() + br label %F +F: + unwind +} -- cgit v1.1