When optimizing for size, don't tail-merge unless it's likely to be a
code-size win, and not when it's only likely to be code-size neutral,
such as when only a single instruction would be eliminated and a new
branch would be required.
This fixes rdar://7392894.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@88692 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/BranchFolding.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/BranchFolding.cpp
index dd17d88..6606316 100644
--- a/lib/CodeGen/BranchFolding.cpp
+++ b/lib/CodeGen/BranchFolding.cpp
@@ -519,21 +519,24 @@
return true;
// If both blocks have an unconditional branch temporarily stripped out,
- // treat that as an additional common instruction.
- if (MBB1 != PredBB && MBB2 != PredBB &&
+ // count that as an additional common instruction for the following
+ // heuristics.
+ unsigned EffectiveTailLen = CommonTailLen;
+ if (SuccBB && MBB1 != PredBB && MBB2 != PredBB &&
!MBB1->back().getDesc().isBarrier() &&
!MBB2->back().getDesc().isBarrier())
- --minCommonTailLength;
+ ++EffectiveTailLen;
// Check if the common tail is long enough to be worthwhile.
- if (CommonTailLen >= minCommonTailLength)
+ if (EffectiveTailLen >= minCommonTailLength)
return true;
- // If we are optimizing for code size, 1 instruction in common is enough if
- // we don't have to split a block. At worst we will be replacing a
- // fallthrough into the common tail with a branch, which at worst breaks
- // even with falling through into the duplicated common tail.
- if (MF->getFunction()->hasFnAttr(Attribute::OptimizeForSize) &&
+ // If we are optimizing for code size, 2 instructions in common is enough if
+ // we don't have to split a block. At worst we will be introducing 1 new
+ // branch instruction, which is likely to be smaller than the 2
+ // instructions that would be deleted in the merge.
+ if (EffectiveTailLen >= 2 &&
+ MF->getFunction()->hasFnAttr(Attribute::OptimizeForSize) &&
(I1 == MBB1->begin() || I2 == MBB2->begin()))
return true;