mirror of
https://github.com/c64scene-ar/llvm-6502.git
synced 2025-09-23 17:28:54 +00:00
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value.
This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@203364 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This commit is contained in:
@@ -65,15 +65,14 @@ static bool processInstruction(Loop &L, Instruction &Inst, DominatorTree &DT,
|
||||
|
||||
BasicBlock *InstBB = Inst.getParent();
|
||||
|
||||
for (Value::use_iterator UI = Inst.use_begin(), E = Inst.use_end(); UI != E;
|
||||
++UI) {
|
||||
User *U = *UI;
|
||||
BasicBlock *UserBB = cast<Instruction>(U)->getParent();
|
||||
if (PHINode *PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(U))
|
||||
UserBB = PN->getIncomingBlock(UI);
|
||||
for (Use &U : Inst.uses()) {
|
||||
Instruction *User = cast<Instruction>(U.getUser());
|
||||
BasicBlock *UserBB = User->getParent();
|
||||
if (PHINode *PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(User))
|
||||
UserBB = PN->getIncomingBlock(U);
|
||||
|
||||
if (InstBB != UserBB && !L.contains(UserBB))
|
||||
UsesToRewrite.push_back(&UI.getUse());
|
||||
UsesToRewrite.push_back(&U);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// If there are no uses outside the loop, exit with no change.
|
||||
@@ -208,8 +207,8 @@ bool llvm::formLCSSA(Loop &L, DominatorTree &DT, ScalarEvolution *SE) {
|
||||
// Reject two common cases fast: instructions with no uses (like stores)
|
||||
// and instructions with one use that is in the same block as this.
|
||||
if (I->use_empty() ||
|
||||
(I->hasOneUse() && I->use_back()->getParent() == BB &&
|
||||
!isa<PHINode>(I->use_back())))
|
||||
(I->hasOneUse() && I->user_back()->getParent() == BB &&
|
||||
!isa<PHINode>(I->user_back())))
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
|
||||
Changed |= processInstruction(L, *I, DT, ExitBlocks, PredCache);
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user