================
@@ -1206,6 +1202,21 @@ class SPIRVStructurizer : public FunctionPass {
AU.addPreserved<SPIRVConvergenceRegionAnalysisWrapperPass>();
FunctionPass::getAnalysisUsage(AU);
}
+
+ void createOpSelectMerge(IRBuilder<> *Builder, BlockAddress *MergeAddress) {
+ Instruction *BBTerminatorInst = Builder->GetInsertBlock()->getTerminator();
+
+ MDNode *MDNode = BBTerminatorInst->getMetadata("hlsl.controlflow.hint");
+ if (MDNode)
+ assert(MDNode->getNumOperands() == 2 &&
----------------
llvm-beanz wrote:
You shouldn't put an `assert` as the only statement on an `if` block, it is
better to fold it into the assert condition.
Today most C runtimes are nice about the `assert` macro defining to a no-op
statement because the spec defines it as such, but people do replace `assert`,
and lots of horrible things can happen if a single-statement `if`'s body is a
macro expansion and the macro doesn't expand to a complete statement. Things
like the _next_ statement becoming the body of the `if`.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/116331
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
