Summary:
Nested if statements can generate empty BBs whose terminator branches
unconditionally to its successor. These branches are not eliminated
to help generate better line number information in some cases, but there
is no reason to keep the empty blocks that result from nested ifs.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini, dblaikie, echristo
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, cfe-commits
Differential review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11360
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@275115
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-
96231b3b80d8
RunCleanupsScope ThenScope(*this);
EmitStmt(S.getThen());
}
- EmitBranch(ContBlock);
+ {
+ auto CurBlock = Builder.GetInsertBlock();
+ EmitBranch(ContBlock);
+ // Eliminate any empty blocks that may have been created by nested
+ // control flow statements in the 'then' clause.
+ if (CurBlock)
+ SimplifyForwardingBlocks(CurBlock);
+ }
// Emit the 'else' code if present.
if (const Stmt *Else = S.getElse()) {
{
// There is no need to emit line number for an unconditional branch.
auto NL = ApplyDebugLocation::CreateEmpty(*this);
+ auto CurBlock = Builder.GetInsertBlock();
EmitBranch(ContBlock);
+ // Eliminate any empty blocks that may have been created by nested
+ // control flow statements emitted in the 'else' clause.
+ if (CurBlock)
+ SimplifyForwardingBlocks(CurBlock);
}
}
--- /dev/null
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -emit-llvm -o - | FileCheck %s
+// Check that no empty blocks are generated for nested ifs.
+
+extern void func();
+
+int f0(int val) {
+ if (val == 0) {
+ func();
+ } else if (val == 1) {
+ func();
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+// CHECK-LABEL: define i32 @f0
+// CHECK: call void {{.*}} @func
+// CHECK: call void {{.*}} @func
+// CHECK: br label %[[RETBLOCK1:[^ ]*]]
+// CHECK: [[RETBLOCK1]]:
+// CHECK-NOT: br label
+// CHECK: ret i32
+
+int f1(int val, int g) {
+ if (val == 0)
+ if (g == 1) {
+ func();
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+// CHECK-LABEL: define i32 @f1
+// CHECK: call void {{.*}} @func
+// CHECK: br label %[[RETBLOCK2:[^ ]*]]
+// CHECK: [[RETBLOCK2]]:
+// CHECK-NOT: br label
+// CHECK: ret i32