On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 09:53 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote:
> > Index: llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InstructionCombining.cpp
> > diff -u llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InstructionCombining.cpp:1.567
> > llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InstructionCombining.cpp:1.568
> > --- llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InstructionCombining.cpp:1.567 Wed
> > Dec 13 02:27:15 2006
> > +++ llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InstructionCombining.cpp Wed Dec 13
> > 02:33:33 2006
> > @@ -2172,11 +2172,13 @@
> > // formed.
> > CastInst *BoolCast = 0;
> > if (CastInst *CI = dyn_cast<CastInst>(I.getOperand(0)))
> > - if (CI->getOperand(0)->getType() == Type::BoolTy)
> > + if (CI->getOperand(0)->getType() == Type::BoolTy &&
> > + CI->getOpcode() == Instruction::ZExt)
> > BoolCast = CI;
> > if (!BoolCast)
> > if (CastInst *CI = dyn_cast<CastInst>(I.getOperand(1)))
> > - if (CI->getOperand(0)->getType() == Type::BoolTy)
> > + if (CI->getOperand(0)->getType() == Type::BoolTy &&
> > + CI->getOpcode() == Instruction::ZExt)
> > BoolCast = CI;
> > if (BoolCast) {
> > if (SetCondInst *SCI = dyn_cast<SetCondInst>(BoolCast-
> > >getOperand(0))) {
>
> Why not dyn_cast<ZExtInst> instead of checking the opcode?
Because at midnight I'm not thinking clearly?
I've included this in my next round of tests.
>
> Thanks Reid,
>
> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
_______________________________________________
llvm-commits mailing list
llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
