From a1643ba71a6708cdbd7fd09c067ee5bc0a912ac1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chris Lattner <sabre@nondot.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:30:05 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] add a note.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@45388 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
---
 lib/Target/README.txt | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/Target/README.txt b/lib/Target/README.txt
index b94bdeac94e..2ef77cb8d30 100644
--- a/lib/Target/README.txt
+++ b/lib/Target/README.txt
@@ -480,6 +480,38 @@ int i;
   }
 }
 
+//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//
 
+We should investigate an instruction sinking pass.  Consider this silly
+example in pic mode:
+
+#include <assert.h>
+void foo(int x) {
+  assert(x);
+  //...
+}
+
+we compile this to:
+_foo:
+	subl	$28, %esp
+	call	"L1$pb"
+"L1$pb":
+	popl	%eax
+	cmpl	$0, 32(%esp)
+	je	LBB1_2	# cond_true
+LBB1_1:	# return
+	# ...
+	addl	$28, %esp
+	ret
+LBB1_2:	# cond_true
+...
+
+The PIC base computation (call+popl) is only used on one path through the 
+code, but is currently always computed in the entry block.  It would be 
+better to sink the picbase computation down into the block for the 
+assertion, as it is the only one that uses it.  This happens for a lot of 
+code with early outs.
+
+In this case, whole-function-isel would also handle this.
 
 //===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//