From: Sanjay Patel <spatel@rotateright.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 23:49:15 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: [InstCombine] reduce indentation; NFC
X-Git-Url: https://granicus.if.org/sourcecode?a=commitdiff_plain;h=97d780bf6020d3b40d96351f599a5076ea2b43e3;p=llvm

[InstCombine] reduce indentation; NFC


git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@286314 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
---

diff --git a/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp b/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp
index 6121b80f23b..6bee87c5d10 100644
--- a/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp
+++ b/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineSelect.cpp
@@ -1305,29 +1305,26 @@ Instruction *InstCombiner::visitSelectInst(SelectInst &SI) {
     }
 
     // MAX(~a, ~b) -> ~MIN(a, b)
-    if (SPF == SPF_SMAX || SPF == SPF_UMAX) {
-      if (IsFreeToInvert(LHS, LHS->hasNUses(2)) &&
-          IsFreeToInvert(RHS, RHS->hasNUses(2))) {
-
-        // This transform adds a xor operation and that extra cost needs to be
-        // justified.  We look for simplifications that will result from
-        // applying this rule:
-
-        bool Profitable =
-            (LHS->hasNUses(2) && match(LHS, m_Not(m_Value()))) ||
-            (RHS->hasNUses(2) && match(RHS, m_Not(m_Value()))) ||
-            (SI.hasOneUse() && match(*SI.user_begin(), m_Not(m_Value())));
-
-        if (Profitable) {
-          Value *NewLHS = Builder->CreateNot(LHS);
-          Value *NewRHS = Builder->CreateNot(RHS);
-          Value *NewCmp = SPF == SPF_SMAX
-                              ? Builder->CreateICmpSLT(NewLHS, NewRHS)
-                              : Builder->CreateICmpULT(NewLHS, NewRHS);
-          Value *NewSI =
-              Builder->CreateNot(Builder->CreateSelect(NewCmp, NewLHS, NewRHS));
-          return replaceInstUsesWith(SI, NewSI);
-        }
+    if ((SPF == SPF_SMAX || SPF == SPF_UMAX) &&
+        IsFreeToInvert(LHS, LHS->hasNUses(2)) &&
+        IsFreeToInvert(RHS, RHS->hasNUses(2))) {
+      // This transform adds a not operation, and that extra cost needs to be
+      // justified. We look for simplifications that will result from applying
+      // this rule:
+      bool Profitable =
+          (LHS->hasNUses(2) && match(LHS, m_Not(m_Value()))) ||
+          (RHS->hasNUses(2) && match(RHS, m_Not(m_Value()))) ||
+          (SI.hasOneUse() && match(*SI.user_begin(), m_Not(m_Value())));
+
+      if (Profitable) {
+        Value *NewLHS = Builder->CreateNot(LHS);
+        Value *NewRHS = Builder->CreateNot(RHS);
+        Value *NewCmp = SPF == SPF_SMAX
+                            ? Builder->CreateICmpSLT(NewLHS, NewRHS)
+                            : Builder->CreateICmpULT(NewLHS, NewRHS);
+        Value *NewSI =
+            Builder->CreateNot(Builder->CreateSelect(NewCmp, NewLHS, NewRHS));
+        return replaceInstUsesWith(SI, NewSI);
       }
     }