// Okay, there is no really great place to put this block. If, however,
// the block before this one would be a fall-through if this block were
- // removed, move this block to the end of the function.
+ // removed, move this block to the end of the function. There is no real
+ // advantage in "falling through" to an EH block, so we don't want to
+ // perform this transformation for that case.
+ //
+ // Also, Windows EH introduced the possibility of an arbitrary number of
+ // successors to a given block. The analyzeBranch call does not consider
+ // exception handling and so we can get in a state where a block
+ // containing a call is followed by multiple EH blocks that would be
+ // rotated infinitely at the end of the function if the transformation
+ // below were performed for EH "FallThrough" blocks. Therefore, even if
+ // that appears not to be happening anymore, we should assume that it is
+ // possible and not remove the "!FallThrough()->isEHPad" condition below.
MachineBasicBlock *PrevTBB = nullptr, *PrevFBB = nullptr;
SmallVector<MachineOperand, 4> PrevCond;
if (FallThrough != MF.end() &&
+ !FallThrough->isEHPad() &&
!TII->analyzeBranch(PrevBB, PrevTBB, PrevFBB, PrevCond, true) &&
PrevBB.isSuccessor(&*FallThrough)) {
MBB->moveAfter(&MF.back());
; CXX-NEXT: .long 1
; CXX-NEXT: .long .Ltmp1@IMGREL+1
; CXX-NEXT: .long -1
-; CXX-NEXT: .long "?catch$2@?0?test@4HA"@IMGREL
+; CXX-NEXT: .long "?catch$3@?0?test@4HA"@IMGREL
; CXX-NEXT: .long 2
; CXX-NEXT: .long .Ltmp2@IMGREL+1
; CXX-NEXT: .long 3
; CXX-NEXT: .long .Ltmp3@IMGREL+1
; CXX-NEXT: .long 2
-; CXX-NEXT: .long "?catch$4@?0?test@4HA"@IMGREL
+; CXX-NEXT: .long "?catch$5@?0?test@4HA"@IMGREL
; CXX-NEXT: .long 4
; SEH-LABEL: test:
; SEH-NEXT: .long .Ltmp0@IMGREL+1
; SEH-NEXT: .long .Ltmp1@IMGREL+1
; SEH-NEXT: .long dummy_filter@IMGREL
-; SEH-NEXT: .long .LBB0_2@IMGREL
+; SEH-NEXT: .long .LBB0_3@IMGREL
; SEH-NEXT: .long .Ltmp0@IMGREL+1
; SEH-NEXT: .long .Ltmp1@IMGREL+1
; SEH-NEXT: .long dummy_filter@IMGREL
-; SEH-NEXT: .long .LBB0_4@IMGREL
+; SEH-NEXT: .long .LBB0_5@IMGREL
; SEH-NEXT: .long .Ltmp2@IMGREL+1
; SEH-NEXT: .long .Ltmp3@IMGREL+1
-; SEH-NEXT: .long "?dtor$5@?0?test@4HA"@IMGREL
+; SEH-NEXT: .long "?dtor$2@?0?test@4HA"@IMGREL
; SEH-NEXT: .long 0
; SEH-NEXT: .long .Ltmp2@IMGREL+1
; SEH-NEXT: .long .Ltmp3@IMGREL+1
; SEH-NEXT: .long dummy_filter@IMGREL
-; SEH-NEXT: .long .LBB0_4@IMGREL
+; SEH-NEXT: .long .LBB0_5@IMGREL
; SEH-NEXT: .Llsda_end0:
;
; CHECK-LABEL: .def test2;
+declare void @g()
+
+define void @test3() optsize personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 to i8*) {
+entry:
+ switch i32 undef, label %if.end57 [
+ i32 64, label %sw.bb
+ i32 128, label %sw.epilog
+ i32 256, label %if.then56
+ i32 1024, label %sw.bb
+ i32 4096, label %sw.bb33
+ i32 16, label %sw.epilog
+ i32 8, label %sw.epilog
+ i32 32, label %sw.bb44
+ ]
+
+sw.bb:
+ unreachable
+
+sw.bb33:
+ br i1 undef, label %if.end57, label %while.cond.i163.preheader
+
+while.cond.i163.preheader:
+ unreachable
+
+sw.bb44:
+ %temp0 = load void ()*, void ()** undef
+ invoke void %temp0()
+ to label %if.end57 unwind label %catch.dispatch
+
+sw.epilog:
+ %temp1 = load i8*, i8** undef
+ br label %if.end57
+
+catch.dispatch:
+ %cs = catchswitch within none [label %catch1, label %catch2, label %catch3] unwind to caller
+
+catch1:
+ %c1 = catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 8, i8* null]
+ unreachable
+
+catch2:
+ %c2 = catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 32, i8* null]
+ unreachable
+
+catch3:
+ %c3 = catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 64, i8* null]
+ unreachable
+
+if.then56:
+ call void @g()
+ br label %if.end57
+
+if.end57:
+ ret void
+}
+
+; This test exercises a complex case that produced an infinite loop during
+; compilation when the two cases above did not. The multiple targets from the
+; entry switch are not actually fundamental to the failure, but they are
+; necessary to suppress various control flow optimizations that would prevent
+; the conditions that lead to the failure.
+;
+; CHECK-LABEL: .def test3;
+