[Bitcode] Fix constexpr expansion creating invalid PHIs #141560
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. |
|
@pcc I think I can ping you as maintainer, it's my first contribution to LLVM so let me know if I'm doing it wrong. |
| /// If this predecessor was also replaced with a constexpr basic | ||
| /// block, it must be de-duplicated. | ||
| if (!EdgeBB) { | ||
| PN->addIncoming(It->second, BB); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| /// If this predecessor was also replaced with a constexpr basic | |
| /// block, it must be de-duplicated. | |
| if (!EdgeBB) { | |
| PN->addIncoming(It->second, BB); | |
| } | |
| // If this predecessor was also replaced with a constexpr basic | |
| // block, it must be de-duplicated. | |
| if (!EdgeBB) | |
| PN->addIncoming(It->second, BB); |
| @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ | |||
| ; RUN: opt -expand-constant-exprs -p verify %s.bc | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ; RUN: opt -expand-constant-exprs -p verify %s.bc | |
| ; RUN: opt -S -expand-constant-exprs %s.bc | FileCheck %s |
-p verify is implied for opt.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense, I also removed the llvm-dis as opt now replaces it. Unless both should be tested?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's fine to drop the llvm-dis.
| @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ | |||
| ; RUN: llvm-dis -expand-constant-exprs < %s.bc | FileCheck %s | |||
| ; RUN: opt -expand-constant-exprs -p verify %s.bc | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ; RUN: opt -expand-constant-exprs -p verify %s.bc | |
| ; RUN: opt -S -expand-constant-exprs %s.bc | FileCheck %s |
Fixes errors about duplicate PHI edges when the input had duplicates with constexprs in them. The constexpr translation makes new basic blocks, causing the verifier to complain about duplicate entries in PHI nodes.
timower
force-pushed
the
constexpr-phi-fix
branch
from
1d651a4 to
08da89a
Compare
|
@timower 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! |
Fixes errors about duplicate PHI edges when the input had duplicates with constexprs in them. The constexpr translation makes new basic blocks, causing the verifier to complain about duplicate entries in PHI nodes.
Fixes errors about duplicate PHI edges when the input had duplicates with constexprs in them. The constexpr translation makes new basic blocks, causing the verifier to complain about duplicate entries in PHI nodes.