Fix inverted condition in NativeRewriter #217
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
In PR #210, this condition was accidentally inverted. The only change here is to uninvert it again. I assume this wasn't causing any issues because most functions only have one BasicBlock. I'm not sure the if statement makes any sense to begin with, but it's hard to tell without an example of a function that has multiple BasicBlocks. The surrounding loop does more than just look for a lower constructor, it also calls `PromoteMemToReg` on some alloca instructions, so it seems weird to exit early when the lower constructor was found. I'm ignoring all of these concerns for now, and only revert condition back to what it was before PR #210, regardless of whether this behaviour was correct or not.
yuri91
approved these changes
Feb 19, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In PR #210, this condition was accidentally inverted. The only change here is to uninvert it again.
I assume this wasn't causing any issues because most functions only have one BasicBlock. I'm not sure the if statement makes any sense to begin with, but it's hard to tell without an example of a function that has multiple BasicBlocks. The surrounding loop does more than just look for a lower constructor, it also calls
PromoteMemToRegon some alloca instructions, so it seems weird to exit early when the lower constructor was found.I'm ignoring all of these concerns for now, and only revert condition back to what it was before PR #210, regardless of whether this behaviour was correct or not.