From 2885e96c0a17705beb57de22b7e64ed1da5c47da Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Sanders Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:35:48 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] [GlobalISel] Correct comment about type vs register class Type and register class aren't mutually exclusive in gMIR but there's also no target-independent requirement (yet?) to have both on target instructions. --- llvm/lib/CodeGen/GlobalISel/GISelKnownBits.cpp | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/GlobalISel/GISelKnownBits.cpp b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/GlobalISel/GISelKnownBits.cpp index 827da6a2ed809..30cd3ce3baa50 100644 --- a/llvm/lib/CodeGen/GlobalISel/GISelKnownBits.cpp +++ b/llvm/lib/CodeGen/GlobalISel/GISelKnownBits.cpp @@ -148,9 +148,8 @@ void GISelKnownBits::computeKnownBitsImpl(Register R, KnownBits &Known, LLT DstTy = MRI.getType(R); // Handle the case where this is called on a register that does not have a - // type constraint (i.e. it has a register class constraint instead). This is - // unlikely to occur except by looking through copies but it is possible for - // the initial register being queried to be in this state. + // type constraint. For example, it may be post-ISel or this target might not + // preserve the type when early-selecting instructions. if (!DstTy.isValid()) { Known = KnownBits(); return;