> Index: llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InstructionCombining.cpp
> diff -u llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InstructionCombining.cpp:1.567
> llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InstructionCombining.cpp:1.568
> --- llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InstructionCombining.cpp:1.567 Wed
> Dec 13 02:27:15 2006
> +++ llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InstructionCombining.cpp Wed Dec 13
> 02:33:33 2006
> @@ -2172,11 +2172,13 @@
> // formed.
> CastInst *BoolCast = 0;
> if (CastInst *CI = dyn_cast<CastInst>(I.getOperand(0)))
> - if (CI->getOperand(0)->getType() == Type::BoolTy)
> + if (CI->getOperand(0)->getType() == Type::BoolTy &&
> + CI->getOpcode() == Instruction::ZExt)
> BoolCast = CI;
> if (!BoolCast)
> if (CastInst *CI = dyn_cast<CastInst>(I.getOperand(1)))
> - if (CI->getOperand(0)->getType() == Type::BoolTy)
> + if (CI->getOperand(0)->getType() == Type::BoolTy &&
> + CI->getOpcode() == Instruction::ZExt)
> BoolCast = CI;
> if (BoolCast) {
> if (SetCondInst *SCI = dyn_cast<SetCondInst>(BoolCast-
> >getOperand(0))) {
Why not dyn_cast<ZExtInst> instead of checking the opcode?
Thanks Reid,
-Chris
_______________________________________________
llvm-commits mailing list
llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
