[CodeGen] Unify MBB reference format in both MIR and debug output
As part of the unification of the debug format and the MIR format, print
MBB references as '%bb.5'.
The MIR printer prints the IR name of a MBB only for block definitions.
* find . \( -name "*.mir" -o -name "*.cpp" -o -name "*.h" -o -name "*.ll" \) -type f -print0 | xargs -0 sed -i '' -E 's/BB#" << ([a-zA-Z0-9_]+)->getNumber\(\)/" << printMBBReference(*\1)/g'
* find . \( -name "*.mir" -o -name "*.cpp" -o -name "*.h" -o -name "*.ll" \) -type f -print0 | xargs -0 sed -i '' -E 's/BB#" << ([a-zA-Z0-9_]+)\.getNumber\(\)/" << printMBBReference(\1)/g'
* find . \( -name "*.txt" -o -name "*.s" -o -name "*.mir" -o -name "*.cpp" -o -name "*.h" -o -name "*.ll" \) -type f -print0 | xargs -0 sed -i '' -E 's/BB#([0-9]+)/%bb.\1/g'
* grep -nr 'BB#' and fix
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40422
llvm-svn: 319665
diff --git a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineSink.cpp b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineSink.cpp
index 11257d9..7857084 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineSink.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineSink.cpp
@@ -243,17 +243,17 @@
// into and they are all PHI nodes. In this case, machine-sink must break
// the critical edge first. e.g.
//
- // BB#1: derived from LLVM BB %bb4.preheader
- // Predecessors according to CFG: BB#0
+ // %bb.1: derived from LLVM BB %bb4.preheader
+ // Predecessors according to CFG: %bb.0
// ...
// %reg16385<def> = DEC64_32r %reg16437, %eflags<imp-def,dead>
// ...
- // JE_4 <BB#37>, %eflags<imp-use>
- // Successors according to CFG: BB#37 BB#2
+ // JE_4 <%bb.37>, %eflags<imp-use>
+ // Successors according to CFG: %bb.37 %bb.2
//
- // BB#2: derived from LLVM BB %bb.nph
- // Predecessors according to CFG: BB#0 BB#1
- // %reg16386<def> = PHI %reg16434, <BB#0>, %reg16385, <BB#1>
+ // %bb.2: derived from LLVM BB %bb.nph
+ // Predecessors according to CFG: %bb.0 %bb.1
+ // %reg16386<def> = PHI %reg16434, %bb.0, %reg16385, %bb.1
BreakPHIEdge = true;
for (MachineOperand &MO : MRI->use_nodbg_operands(Reg)) {
MachineInstr *UseInst = MO.getParent();
@@ -321,10 +321,10 @@
for (auto &Pair : ToSplit) {
auto NewSucc = Pair.first->SplitCriticalEdge(Pair.second, *this);
if (NewSucc != nullptr) {
- DEBUG(dbgs() << " *** Splitting critical edge:"
- " BB#" << Pair.first->getNumber()
- << " -- BB#" << NewSucc->getNumber()
- << " -- BB#" << Pair.second->getNumber() << '\n');
+ DEBUG(dbgs() << " *** Splitting critical edge: "
+ << printMBBReference(*Pair.first) << " -- "
+ << printMBBReference(*NewSucc) << " -- "
+ << printMBBReference(*Pair.second) << '\n');
MadeChange = true;
++NumSplit;
} else
@@ -460,33 +460,33 @@
// It's not always legal to break critical edges and sink the computation
// to the edge.
//
- // BB#1:
+ // %bb.1:
// v1024
- // Beq BB#3
+ // Beq %bb.3
// <fallthrough>
- // BB#2:
+ // %bb.2:
// ... no uses of v1024
// <fallthrough>
- // BB#3:
+ // %bb.3:
// ...
// = v1024
//
- // If BB#1 -> BB#3 edge is broken and computation of v1024 is inserted:
+ // If %bb.1 -> %bb.3 edge is broken and computation of v1024 is inserted:
//
- // BB#1:
+ // %bb.1:
// ...
- // Bne BB#2
- // BB#4:
+ // Bne %bb.2
+ // %bb.4:
// v1024 =
- // B BB#3
- // BB#2:
+ // B %bb.3
+ // %bb.2:
// ... no uses of v1024
// <fallthrough>
- // BB#3:
+ // %bb.3:
// ...
// = v1024
//
- // This is incorrect since v1024 is not computed along the BB#1->BB#2->BB#3
+ // This is incorrect since v1024 is not computed along the %bb.1->%bb.2->%bb.3
// flow. We need to ensure the new basic block where the computation is
// sunk to dominates all the uses.
// It's only legal to break critical edge and sink the computation to the