[Dominators] Remove misleading double-deletion test

Summary:
It's generally not safe to perform multiple DomTree updates without using the incremental API.

Although it is supposed to work in this particular case, the testcase is misleading/confusing, and it's better to remove it.

Reviewers: dberlin, brzycki, davide, grosser

Reviewed By: davide

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42333

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@323058 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This commit is contained in:
Jakub Kuderski 2018-01-21 03:07:16 +00:00
parent e85f69d55b
commit 4f0f375320

View File

@ -822,36 +822,6 @@ TEST(DominatorTree, DeleteUnreachable) {
}
}
TEST(DominatorTree, DeletionsInSubtrees) {
CFGHolder Holder;
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Arc> Arcs = {{"0", "1"}, {"1", "2"}, {"1", "3"},
{"1", "6"}, {"3", "4"}, {"2", "5"},
{"5", "2"}};
// It is possible to perform multiple deletions and inform the
// DominatorTree about them at the same time, if the all of the
// deletions happen in different subtrees.
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Update> Updates = {{Delete, {"1", "2"}},
{Delete, {"1", "3"}}};
CFGBuilder B(Holder.F, Arcs, Updates);
DominatorTree DT(*Holder.F);
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
Optional<CFGBuilder::Update> LastUpdate;
while ((LastUpdate = B.applyUpdate()))
;
DT.deleteEdge(B.getOrAddBlock("1"), B.getOrAddBlock("2"));
DT.deleteEdge(B.getOrAddBlock("1"), B.getOrAddBlock("3"));
EXPECT_TRUE(DT.verify());
EXPECT_EQ(DT.getNode(B.getOrAddBlock("2")), nullptr);
EXPECT_EQ(DT.getNode(B.getOrAddBlock("3")), nullptr);
EXPECT_EQ(DT.getNode(B.getOrAddBlock("4")), nullptr);
EXPECT_EQ(DT.getNode(B.getOrAddBlock("5")), nullptr);
EXPECT_NE(DT.getNode(B.getOrAddBlock("6")), nullptr);
}
TEST(DominatorTree, InsertDelete) {
std::vector<CFGBuilder::Arc> Arcs = {
{"1", "2"}, {"2", "3"}, {"3", "4"}, {"4", "5"}, {"5", "6"}, {"5", "7"},