From 1d55ba306b4dad20b358fd237dbcd288e95c3fb8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Eli Friedman <eli.friedman@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 01:18:23 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Zap some completely ridiculous code.  There's probably a
 miscompile here, but I don't really want to try to write a testcase involving
 an invoke returning a pointer to a varargs function...

llvm-svn: 145347
---
 lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineCalls.cpp | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineCalls.cpp b/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineCalls.cpp
index e8136ab77ff..81dad7e022e 100644
--- a/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineCalls.cpp
+++ b/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineCalls.cpp
@@ -960,7 +960,7 @@ Instruction *InstCombiner::visitCallSite(CallSite CS) {
   PointerType *PTy = cast<PointerType>(Callee->getType());
   FunctionType *FTy = cast<FunctionType>(PTy->getElementType());
   if (FTy->isVarArg()) {
-    int ix = FTy->getNumParams() + (isa<InvokeInst>(Callee) ? 2 : 0);
+    int ix = FTy->getNumParams();
     // See if we can optimize any arguments passed through the varargs area of
     // the call.
     for (CallSite::arg_iterator I = CS.arg_begin()+FTy->getNumParams(),