}
auto *BI = dyn_cast<BranchInst>(LoopLatch->getTerminator());
- if (!BI) {
+ if (!BI || !BI->isConditional()) {
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Failed to match the latch terminator!\n");
return None;
}
"One of the latch's destinations must be the header");
auto *ICI = dyn_cast<ICmpInst>(BI->getCondition());
- if (!ICI || !BI->isConditional()) {
+ if (!ICI) {
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Failed to match the latch condition!\n");
return None;
}
ret i32 0
}
+; Negative test, make sure we don't crash on unconditional latches
+; TODO: there's no reason we shouldn't be able to predicate the
+; condition for an statically infinite loop.
+define i32 @unconditional_latch(i32* %a, i32 %length) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @unconditional_latch(
+; CHECK-NEXT: loop.preheader:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label [[LOOP:%.*]]
+; CHECK: loop:
+; CHECK-NEXT: [[I:%.*]] = phi i32 [ [[I_NEXT:%.*]], [[LOOP]] ], [ 400, [[LOOP_PREHEADER:%.*]] ]
+; CHECK-NEXT: [[WITHIN_BOUNDS:%.*]] = icmp ult i32 [[I]], [[LENGTH:%.*]]
+; CHECK-NEXT: call void (i1, ...) @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 [[WITHIN_BOUNDS]], i32 9) [ "deopt"() ]
+; CHECK-NEXT: store volatile i32 0, i32* [[A:%.*]]
+; CHECK-NEXT: [[I_NEXT]] = add i32 [[I]], 1
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label [[LOOP]]
+;
+loop.preheader:
+ br label %loop
+
+loop:
+ %i = phi i32 [ %i.next, %loop ], [ 400, %loop.preheader ]
+ %within.bounds = icmp ult i32 %i, %length
+ call void (i1, ...) @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 %within.bounds, i32 9) [ "deopt"() ]
+ store volatile i32 0, i32* %a
+ %i.next = add i32 %i, 1
+ br label %loop
+}