[NFC] Simplify checks using isDebugOrPseudoInstr API

[wlei-llvm]

Merge the two checks using the existing API, NFC.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-regalloc

Author: Lei Wang (wlei-llvm)

Changes

Merge the two checks using the existing API, NFC.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145127.diff

2 Files Affected:

• (modified) llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineSink.cpp (+1-1)
• (modified) llvm/lib/CodeGen/RegisterPressure.cpp (+1-1)

diff --git a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineSink.cpp b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineSink.cpp
index 8411d5c4b09c8..e9544727af9e4 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineSink.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineSink.cpp
@@ -1208,7 +1208,7 @@ MachineSinking::getBBRegisterPressure(const MachineBasicBlock &MBB,
                                          MIE = MBB.instr_begin();
        MII != MIE; --MII) {
     const MachineInstr &MI = *std::prev(MII);
-    if (MI.isDebugInstr() || MI.isPseudoProbe())
+    if (MI.isDebugOrPseudoInstr())
       continue;
     RegisterOperands RegOpers;
     RegOpers.collect(MI, *TRI, *MRI, false, false);
diff --git a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/RegisterPressure.cpp b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/RegisterPressure.cpp
index ca51b670b46cc..bcfa270b1e7c8 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/RegisterPressure.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/RegisterPressure.cpp
@@ -858,7 +858,7 @@ void RegPressureTracker::recedeSkipDebugValues() {
 
 void RegPressureTracker::recede(SmallVectorImpl<VRegMaskOrUnit> *LiveUses) {
   recedeSkipDebugValues();
-  if (CurrPos->isDebugInstr() || CurrPos->isPseudoProbe()) {
+  if (CurrPos->isDebugOrPseudoInstr()) {
     // It's possible to only have debug_value and pseudo probe instructions and
     // hit the start of the block.
     assert(CurrPos == MBB->begin());

[arsenm]

I think the isDebugOrPseudoInstr name is confusing. We already have multiple notions of "pseudoinstructions" and specifically PseudoProbe isn't one of them

[wlei-llvm]

Sounds good, any suggestions? would isDebugOrPseudoProbeInstr be better?

Would it be ok to check in the current diff first? as the changes are independent of the naming, I'll create a separate diff for the name change.

[WenleiHe]

Perhaps isDebugInstrOrPseudoProbe? But since this PR did not introduce new API, I'd suggest leave renaming existing API to a separate PR.

[wlei-llvm]

Sounds good with isDebugInstrOrPseudoProbe, thank for the suggestion!

[WenleiHe]

lgtm and suggest deal with renaming of existing API separately.

[arsenm]

probably should still go ahead with the rename?