Begin the painful process of tearing apart the rat'ss nest that is Constants.cpp and ConstantFold.cpp.

This involves temporarily hard wiring some parts to use the global context.  This isn't ideal, but it's
the only way I could figure out to make this process vaguely incremental.


git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@75445 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

1 files changed, 15 insertions, 15 deletions

diff --git a/lib/Transforms/Scalar/Reassociate.cpp b/lib/Transforms/Scalar/Reassociate.cpp
index 845c312c22..054e09d3c5 100644
--- a/lib/Transforms/Scalar/Reassociate.cpp
+++ b/lib/Transforms/Scalar/Reassociate.cpp
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ unsigned Reassociate::getRank(Value *V) {
   // If this is a not or neg instruction, do not count it for rank.  This
   // assures us that X and ~X will have the same rank.
   if (!I->getType()->isInteger() ||
-      (!BinaryOperator::isNot(I) && !BinaryOperator::isNeg(I)))
+      (!BinaryOperator::isNot(I) && !BinaryOperator::isNeg(*Context, I)))
     ++Rank;
 
   //DOUT << "Calculated Rank[" << V->getName() << "] = "
@@ -264,12 +264,12 @@ void Reassociate::LinearizeExprTree(BinaryOperator *I,
   // If this is a multiply expression tree and it contains internal negations,
   // transform them into multiplies by -1 so they can be reassociated.
   if (I->getOpcode() == Instruction::Mul) {
-    if (!LHSBO && LHS->hasOneUse() && BinaryOperator::isNeg(LHS)) {
+    if (!LHSBO && LHS->hasOneUse() && BinaryOperator::isNeg(*Context, LHS)) {
       LHS = LowerNegateToMultiply(cast<Instruction>(LHS),
                                   ValueRankMap, Context);
       LHSBO = isReassociableOp(LHS, Opcode);
     }
-    if (!RHSBO && RHS->hasOneUse() && BinaryOperator::isNeg(RHS)) {
+    if (!RHSBO && RHS->hasOneUse() && BinaryOperator::isNeg(*Context, RHS)) {
       RHS = LowerNegateToMultiply(cast<Instruction>(RHS),
                                   ValueRankMap, Context);
       RHSBO = isReassociableOp(RHS, Opcode);
@@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ void Reassociate::RewriteExprTree(BinaryOperator *I,
 // version of the value is returned, and BI is left pointing at the instruction
 // that should be processed next by the reassociation pass.
 //
-static Value *NegateValue(Value *V, Instruction *BI) {
+static Value *NegateValue(LLVMContext *Context, Value *V, Instruction *BI) {
   // We are trying to expose opportunity for reassociation.  One of the things
   // that we want to do to achieve this is to push a negation as deep into an
   // expression chain as possible, to expose the add instructions.  In practice,
@@ -386,8 +386,8 @@ static Value *NegateValue(Value *V, Instruction *BI) {
   if (Instruction *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V))
     if (I->getOpcode() == Instruction::Add && I->hasOneUse()) {
       // Push the negates through the add.
-      I->setOperand(0, NegateValue(I->getOperand(0), BI));
-      I->setOperand(1, NegateValue(I->getOperand(1), BI));
+      I->setOperand(0, NegateValue(Context, I->getOperand(0), BI));
+      I->setOperand(1, NegateValue(Context, I->getOperand(1), BI));
 
       // We must move the add instruction here, because the neg instructions do
       // not dominate the old add instruction in general.  By moving it, we are
@@ -402,14 +402,14 @@ static Value *NegateValue(Value *V, Instruction *BI) {
   // Insert a 'neg' instruction that subtracts the value from zero to get the
   // negation.
   //
-  return BinaryOperator::CreateNeg(V, V->getName() + ".neg", BI);
+  return BinaryOperator::CreateNeg(*Context, V, V->getName() + ".neg", BI);
 }
 
 /// ShouldBreakUpSubtract - Return true if we should break up this subtract of
 /// X-Y into (X + -Y).
-static bool ShouldBreakUpSubtract(Instruction *Sub) {
+static bool ShouldBreakUpSubtract(LLVMContext *Context, Instruction *Sub) {
   // If this is a negation, we can't split it up!
-  if (BinaryOperator::isNeg(Sub))
+  if (BinaryOperator::isNeg(*Context, Sub))
     return false;
   
   // Don't bother to break this up unless either the LHS is an associable add or
@@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ static bool ShouldBreakUpSubtract(Instruction *Sub) {
 /// BreakUpSubtract - If we have (X-Y), and if either X is an add, or if this is
 /// only used by an add, transform this into (X+(0-Y)) to promote better
 /// reassociation.
-static Instruction *BreakUpSubtract(Instruction *Sub,
+static Instruction *BreakUpSubtract(LLVMContext *Context, Instruction *Sub,
                               std::map<AssertingVH<>, unsigned> &ValueRankMap) {
   // Convert a subtract into an add and a neg instruction... so that sub
   // instructions can be commuted with other add instructions...
@@ -439,7 +439,7 @@ static Instruction *BreakUpSubtract(Instruction *Sub,
   // Calculate the negative value of Operand 1 of the sub instruction...
   // and set it as the RHS of the add instruction we just made...
   //
-  Value *NegVal = NegateValue(Sub->getOperand(1), Sub);
+  Value *NegVal = NegateValue(Context, Sub->getOperand(1), Sub);
   Instruction *New =
     BinaryOperator::CreateAdd(Sub->getOperand(0), NegVal, "", Sub);
   New->takeName(Sub);
@@ -663,7 +663,7 @@ Value *Reassociate::OptimizeExpression(BinaryOperator *I,
     for (unsigned i = 0, e = Ops.size(); i != e; ++i) {
       assert(i < Ops.size());
       // Check for X and -X in the operand list.
-      if (BinaryOperator::isNeg(Ops[i].Op)) {
+      if (BinaryOperator::isNeg(*Context, Ops[i].Op)) {
         Value *X = BinaryOperator::getNegArgument(Ops[i].Op);
         unsigned FoundX = FindInOperandList(Ops, i, X);
         if (FoundX != i) {
@@ -798,10 +798,10 @@ void Reassociate::ReassociateBB(BasicBlock *BB) {
     // If this is a subtract instruction which is not already in negate form,
     // see if we can convert it to X+-Y.
     if (BI->getOpcode() == Instruction::Sub) {
-      if (ShouldBreakUpSubtract(BI)) {
-        BI = BreakUpSubtract(BI, ValueRankMap);
+      if (ShouldBreakUpSubtract(Context, BI)) {
+        BI = BreakUpSubtract(Context, BI, ValueRankMap);
         MadeChange = true;
-      } else if (BinaryOperator::isNeg(BI)) {
+      } else if (BinaryOperator::isNeg(*Context, BI)) {
         // Otherwise, this is a negation.  See if the operand is a multiply tree
         // and if this is not an inner node of a multiply tree.
         if (isReassociableOp(BI->getOperand(1), Instruction::Mul) &&