Previously we skipped uses within the same BB as a def when rebuilding
SSA after SjLj transformation. For example, before transformation,
for.cond: %0 = phi i32 [ %var, %for.inc ] ... %var = ... br label %for.inc for.inc: ; preds = %for.cond call i32 @setjmp(...) br %for.cond
In this BB, %var should be defined in all paths from %for.inc to make %0
valid. In the input it was true; %for.inc's only predecessor was
%for.cond. But after SjLj transformation, it is possible that %for.inc
has other predecessors that are reachable without reaching %for.cond.
entry.split: ... br i1 %a, label %bb.1, label %for.inc for.cond: %0 = phi i32 [ %var, %for.inc ] ... ; Not valid! %var = ... br label %for.inc for.inc: ; preds = %for.cond, %entry.split call i32 @setjmp(...) ... br %for.cond
In this case, we can't use %var in the phi instruction in %for.cond,
because %var is not defined in all paths through %for.inc (If the
control flow is %entry -> %entry.split -> %for.inc -> %for.cond, %var
has not been defined until we reach the phi). But the previous code
excluded users within the same BB, skipping instructions within the same
BB so they are not rewritten properly. User instructions within the same
BB also should be candidates for rewriting if they are _before_ the
original definition.
Fixes PR43097.
This is just hoisting, because we were doing the same thing unnecessarily repeatedly in the inner loop. Not related to the bugfix itself.