[CIR][Lowering][Bugfix] Lower nested breaks in switch statements #357
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
bcardosolopes
requested changes
Dec 19, 2023
lanza
force-pushed
the
main
branch
2 times, most recently
from
05ffb2a
to
34fceae
Compare
gitoleg
force-pushed
the
fix-switch-nested-break
branch
from
e94ae0c
to
519fe36
Compare
|
@bcardosolopes done! |
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 29, 2024
This PR fixes lowering of the next code:
```
void foo(int x, int y) {
switch (x) {
case 0:
if (y)
break;
break;
}
}
```
i.e. when some sub statement contains `break` as well. Previously, we
did this trick for `loop`: process nested `break`/`continue` statements
while `LoopOp` lowering if they don't belong to another `LoopOp` or
`SwitchOp`. This is why there is some refactoring here as well, but the
idea is stiil the same: we need to process nested operations and emit
branches to the proper blocks.
This is quite frequent bug in `llvm-test-suite`
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 23, 2024
This PR fixes lowering of the next code:
```
void foo(int x, int y) {
switch (x) {
case 0:
if (y)
break;
break;
}
}
```
i.e. when some sub statement contains `break` as well. Previously, we
did this trick for `loop`: process nested `break`/`continue` statements
while `LoopOp` lowering if they don't belong to another `LoopOp` or
`SwitchOp`. This is why there is some refactoring here as well, but the
idea is stiil the same: we need to process nested operations and emit
branches to the proper blocks.
This is quite frequent bug in `llvm-test-suite`
eZWALT
pushed a commit
to eZWALT/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2024
…m#357) This PR fixes lowering of the next code: ``` void foo(int x, int y) { switch (x) { case 0: if (y) break; break; } } ``` i.e. when some sub statement contains `break` as well. Previously, we did this trick for `loop`: process nested `break`/`continue` statements while `LoopOp` lowering if they don't belong to another `LoopOp` or `SwitchOp`. This is why there is some refactoring here as well, but the idea is stiil the same: we need to process nested operations and emit branches to the proper blocks. This is quite frequent bug in `llvm-test-suite`
eZWALT
pushed a commit
to eZWALT/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2024
…m#357) This PR fixes lowering of the next code: ``` void foo(int x, int y) { switch (x) { case 0: if (y) break; break; } } ``` i.e. when some sub statement contains `break` as well. Previously, we did this trick for `loop`: process nested `break`/`continue` statements while `LoopOp` lowering if they don't belong to another `LoopOp` or `SwitchOp`. This is why there is some refactoring here as well, but the idea is stiil the same: we need to process nested operations and emit branches to the proper blocks. This is quite frequent bug in `llvm-test-suite`
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2024
This PR fixes lowering of the next code:
```
void foo(int x, int y) {
switch (x) {
case 0:
if (y)
break;
break;
}
}
```
i.e. when some sub statement contains `break` as well. Previously, we
did this trick for `loop`: process nested `break`/`continue` statements
while `LoopOp` lowering if they don't belong to another `LoopOp` or
`SwitchOp`. This is why there is some refactoring here as well, but the
idea is stiil the same: we need to process nested operations and emit
branches to the proper blocks.
This is quite frequent bug in `llvm-test-suite`
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2024
This PR fixes lowering of the next code:
```
void foo(int x, int y) {
switch (x) {
case 0:
if (y)
break;
break;
}
}
```
i.e. when some sub statement contains `break` as well. Previously, we
did this trick for `loop`: process nested `break`/`continue` statements
while `LoopOp` lowering if they don't belong to another `LoopOp` or
`SwitchOp`. This is why there is some refactoring here as well, but the
idea is stiil the same: we need to process nested operations and emit
branches to the proper blocks.
This is quite frequent bug in `llvm-test-suite`
eZWALT
pushed a commit
to eZWALT/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2024
…m#357) This PR fixes lowering of the next code: ``` void foo(int x, int y) { switch (x) { case 0: if (y) break; break; } } ``` i.e. when some sub statement contains `break` as well. Previously, we did this trick for `loop`: process nested `break`/`continue` statements while `LoopOp` lowering if they don't belong to another `LoopOp` or `SwitchOp`. This is why there is some refactoring here as well, but the idea is stiil the same: we need to process nested operations and emit branches to the proper blocks. This is quite frequent bug in `llvm-test-suite`
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2024
This PR fixes lowering of the next code:
```
void foo(int x, int y) {
switch (x) {
case 0:
if (y)
break;
break;
}
}
```
i.e. when some sub statement contains `break` as well. Previously, we
did this trick for `loop`: process nested `break`/`continue` statements
while `LoopOp` lowering if they don't belong to another `LoopOp` or
`SwitchOp`. This is why there is some refactoring here as well, but the
idea is stiil the same: we need to process nested operations and emit
branches to the proper blocks.
This is quite frequent bug in `llvm-test-suite`
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.
This PR fixes lowering of the next code:
i.e. when some sub statement contains
breakas well. Previously, we did this trick forloop: process nestedbreak/continuestatements whileLoopOplowering if they don't belong to anotherLoopOporSwitchOp. This is why there is some refactoring here as well, but the idea is stiil the same: we need to process nested operations and emit branches to the proper blocks.This is quite frequent bug in
llvm-test-suite