[AndyAyersMS]

FYI @EgorBo @jakobbotsch

This gets the ?: case Egor was discussing and maybe the local address one Jakob was looking at.

Not sure this is the best approach, but it does some interesting things. It leverage the local threading so hopefully isn't' too costly.

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

FYI @EgorBo @jakobbotsch

This gets the ?: case Egor was discussing and maybe the local address one Jakob was looking at.

Not sure this is the best approach, but it does some interesting things. It leverage the local threading so hopefully isn't' too costly.

Author:	AndyAyersMS
Assignees:	-
Labels:	area-CodeGen-coreclr
Milestone:	-

[AndyAyersMS]

Sample diff

[jakobbotsch]

maybe the local address one Jakob was looking at

To handle these cases we need to do something before or during local morph, otherwise we will still end up with address exposure.

[AndyAyersMS]

This is like an anti-head-merge... if we were to take this along with head merge we'd need to figure out how not to undo what we just did.

[danmoseley]

Suggested change

	// We only consider blocks with muliple preds without
	// We only consider blocks with multiple preds without

[jakobbotsch]

This is like an anti-head-merge

Isn't this more like an anti-tail-merge? It duplicates the same statement at the end of multiple predecessors, so those statements are candidates for tail merging.

[AndyAyersMS]

This is like an anti-head-merge

Isn't this more like an anti-tail-merge? It duplicates the same statement at the end of multiple predecessors, so those statements are candidates for tail merging.

Yes, you're right. Actually an anti-head-merge (head duplication? I guess) might be interesting to consider, if we think the successor blocks have more interesting context than the current block.

[ghost]

Draft Pull Request was automatically closed for 30 days of inactivity. Please let us know if you'd like to reopen it.