addressed comments.

rebased and add more fixes

In D63640#2331734, @martong wrote:

In D63640#2331410, @rsmith wrote:

Reverse ping: I have a patch implementing class type non-type template parameters that's blocked on this landing. If you won't have time to address @martong's comments soon, do you mind if I take this over and land it?

It is okay for me to commit this patch in its current state. The changes I suggested could result in a cleaner code, but I can do those changes after we land this.

try to apply martongs's suggestions.

What about leaving call llvm.assume whenever the load !noundef is moved to somewhere else? I guess this is what LLVM is doing as well.

If --enable-knowledge-retention is set, we should certainly do that if we would otherwise strip the metadata (not only for noundef).

this is not implemented the assume building currently don't look at any metadata.

you probably want to add noundef to isUsefullToPreserve such that it gets preserved automatically when knowledge retention is turned on.

addressed comments.

addressed comments.

This change makes a lot of sense, but i don't understand all the consequences either.

addressed comments

rebased
add cannonicalization of assume bundles

this was a mistake i intended to update D82703

In D86816#2273029, @jdoerfert wrote:

OK, I think we need to revisit assume but an otherwise empty loop with an assume doesn't seem to be particularly useful. We might want to hoist loop invariant assumes, but that can be revisited. I think this solves a problem and is reasonable until we have time and ideas.

rebased

In D86816#2245470, @jdoerfert wrote:

I'd almost say mayHaveSideEffects could have a boolean parameter to ignore droppable uses. Either way, this is right now the best we can do, teach the things that query mayHaveSideEffects and friends about droppable uses. If we have them as flags to all of them that might be easier to do.

yeah linkage was already changed.
added a test

In D86404#2232128, @lebedev.ri wrote:

Needs two tests - i agree that comdat makes sense, but i'm not sure about linkage.

Addressed comments.

In D85996#2219650, @lebedev.ri wrote:

This seems fine to me, thanks.
If you have llvm-reduce crashers, do let me know, i'm interested.

In D85996#2219124, @lebedev.ri wrote:

1. I'm pretty sure it's not okay to allocate memory in crash handler.
2. We can't know that the internal state is still consistent.

i agree with both points but all i was trying to do i salvage what can be salvaged.

In D83507#2215586, @lebedev.ri wrote:

Please rebase and update the affected test :)

In D85144#2205461, @riccibruno wrote:

I agree with you that it's fine to use printPretty for leaves (and additionally it would be annoying to duplicate the LValue case); that's what I was planning to do anyway.

What I am not sure I agree with is the additional complexity to handle the (debugger-only and easy to avoid) case where no context is given.

thanks for this,

addressed comments

rebased

this a patch i had to improve dumping before your improvement to dumping.

remove unintended code.

Sorry for the delay

just one nit

just one nit

thank you for working on this

In D83507#2145353, @lebedev.ri wrote:

Also, this either needs a rebase, or this isn't against master but the stack doesn't say so.

In D83507#2142627, @lebedev.ri wrote:

Test?

Fixed formating

In D83505#2142556, @lebedev.ri wrote:

Is there really no such existing script? (i don't know of one, i've always hacked around with bash)

i tried to find one the first time i needed one and didn't find any. maybe there is one i didn't find.

I had to merge the previous patch with other i had laying around and add some more
to make the bundle mode be at least as good as the default. so this revision got
quite a bit bigger.

fixed

addressed commemt.

In D77734#2117317, @jdoerfert wrote:

What is the status on this one? Are there other AssumeBundle patches pending or missing?

Thank you for reducing rG7ea46aee3670981827c04df89b2c3a1cbdc7561b
this seems quite useful.

fixed the issue with multiple align in a single assume.

addressed the comments
the previous patch had many stupid mistakes

there is an NFC change to the test that was excluded from the diff to make it easier to read.

addressed comments

sorry for not doing much recently.