1; This test exercises that we don't corrupt a loop-analysis when running loop
2; unrolling in a way that deletes a loop. To do that, we first ensure the
3; analysis is cached, then unroll the loop (deleting it) and make sure that the
4; next function doesn't get a cache "hit" for this stale analysis result.
5;
6; RUN: opt -S -passes='loop(require<access-info>),loop-unroll,loop(print-access-info)' -debug-pass-manager < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
7;
8; CHECK: Running analysis: LoopAnalysis
9; CHECK: Running analysis: InnerAnalysisManagerProxy<
10; CHECK: Running pass: RequireAnalysisPass<{{.*}}LoopAccessAnalysis
11; CHECK: Running analysis: LoopAccessAnalysis on Loop at depth 2 containing: %inner1.header
12; CHECK: Running pass: RequireAnalysisPass<{{.*}}LoopAccessAnalysis
13; CHECK: Running analysis: LoopAccessAnalysis on Loop at depth 2 containing: %inner2.header
14; CHECK: Running pass: RequireAnalysisPass<{{.*}}LoopAccessAnalysis
15; CHECK: Running analysis: LoopAccessAnalysis on Loop at depth 1 containing: %outer.header
16; CHECK: Running pass: LoopUnrollPass
17; CHECK: Clearing all analysis results for: inner2.header
18; CHECK: Clearing all analysis results for: outer.header
19; CHECK: Invalidating analysis: LoopAccessAnalysis on {{.*}}inner1.header
20; CHECK-NOT: Invalidating analysis: LoopAccessAnalysis on {{.*}}inner1.header.1
21; CHECK: Running pass: LoopAccessInfoPrinterPass
22; CHECK: Running analysis: LoopAccessAnalysis on Loop at depth 1 containing: %inner1.header
23; CHECK: Loop access info in function 'test':
24; CHECK:   inner1.header:
25; CHECK: Running pass: LoopAccessInfoPrinterPass
26; CHECK: Running analysis: LoopAccessAnalysis on Loop at depth 1 containing: %inner1.header.1
27; CHECK: Loop access info in function 'test':
28; CHECK:   inner1.header.1:
29
30target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"
31
32define void @test(i32 %inner1.count) {
33; CHECK-LABEL: define void @test(
34bb:
35  br label %outer.ph
36
37outer.ph:
38  br label %outer.header
39
40outer.header:
41  %outer.i = phi i32 [ 0, %outer.ph ], [ %outer.i.next, %outer.latch ]
42  br label %inner1.ph
43
44inner1.ph:
45  br label %inner1.header
46
47inner1.header:
48  %inner1.i = phi i32 [ 0, %inner1.ph ], [ %inner1.i.next, %inner1.header ]
49  %inner1.i.next = add i32 %inner1.i, 1
50  %inner1.cond = icmp eq i32 %inner1.i, %inner1.count
51  br i1 %inner1.cond, label %inner1.exit, label %inner1.header
52; We should have two unrolled copies of this loop and nothing else.
53;
54; CHECK-NOT:     icmp eq
55; CHECK-NOT:     br i1
56; CHECK:         %[[COND1:.*]] = icmp eq i32 %{{.*}}, %inner1.count
57; CHECK:         br i1 %[[COND1]],
58; CHECK-NOT:     icmp eq
59; CHECK-NOT:     br i1
60; CHECK:         %[[COND2:.*]] = icmp eq i32 %{{.*}}, %inner1.count
61; CHECK:         br i1 %[[COND2]],
62; CHECK-NOT:     icmp eq
63; CHECK-NOT:     br i1
64
65
66inner1.exit:
67  br label %inner2.ph
68
69inner2.ph:
70  br label %inner2.header
71
72inner2.header:
73  %inner2.i = phi i32 [ 0, %inner2.ph ], [ %inner2.i.next, %inner2.header ]
74  %inner2.i.next = add i32 %inner2.i, 1
75  %inner2.cond = icmp eq i32 %inner2.i, 4
76  br i1 %inner2.cond, label %inner2.exit, label %inner2.header
77
78inner2.exit:
79  br label %outer.latch
80
81outer.latch:
82  %outer.i.next = add i32 %outer.i, 1
83  %outer.cond = icmp eq i32 %outer.i.next, 2
84  br i1 %outer.cond, label %outer.exit, label %outer.header
85
86outer.exit:
87  br label %exit
88
89exit:
90  ret void
91}
92