[SOL] Do not add a return after a JA #155
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
LucasSte
force-pushed
the
no-ja
branch
2 times, most recently
from
20b3c27 to
cef91ba
Compare
|
Isn't this very niche? It can only ever optimize a single instruction, right? |
This PR simplifies a couple of things:
|
Lichtso
approved these changes
Jun 24, 2025
LucasSte
merged commit c0e0c7f
into
anza-xyz:solana-rustc/19.1-2024-12-03
21 checks passed
LucasSte
added a commit
to LucasSte/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 12, 2025
* Do not add a return after a JA * Update runner to windows 2022 * Do not iterate over all blocks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We can simplify the patch of function with the
returninstruction, if we know that lastMachineBasicBlockis also the last block in the ELF layout.Since
PreEmitPeepholehappens after block placement, that assumption holds.Also, I avoided adding
returnwhen the last instruction is aja.