Subzero: Local variable splitting.

src/IceVariableSplitting.cpp

+//===- subzero/src/IceVariableSplitting.cpp - Local variable splitting ----===//
+//
+//                        The Subzero Code Generator
+//
+// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
+// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+///
+/// \file
+/// \brief Aggressive block-local variable splitting to improve linear-scan
+/// register allocation.
+///
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+#include "IceVariableSplitting.h"
+
+#include "IceCfg.h"
+#include "IceCfgNode.h"
+#include "IceClFlags.h"
+#include "IceInst.h"
+#include "IceOperand.h"
+#include "IceTargetLowering.h"
+
+namespace Ice {
+
+namespace {
+
+/// A Variable is "allocable" if it is a register allocation candidate but
+/// doesn't already have a register.
+bool isAllocable(const Variable *Var) {
+  if (Var == nullptr)
+    return false;
+  return !Var->hasReg() && Var->mayHaveReg();
+}
+
+/// A Variable is "inf" if it already has a register or is infinite-weight.
+bool isInf(const Variable *Var) {
+  if (Var == nullptr)
+    return false;
+  return Var->hasReg() || Var->mustHaveReg();
+}
+
+/// VariableMap is a simple helper class for splitLocalVars(), that keeps track
+/// of the latest split version of the original Variables.  For each entry, the
+/// Variable is tagged with the CfgNode that it is valid in, so that we don't
+/// need to clear the entire Map[] vector for each block.
+class VariableMap {
+private:
+  VariableMap() = delete;
+  VariableMap(const VariableMap &) = delete;
+  VariableMap &operator=(const VariableMap &) = delete;
+
+  /// VarNodePair is basically std::pair<Variable*,CfgNode*> .
+  struct VarNodePair {
+    Variable *Var = nullptr;
+    const CfgNode *Node = nullptr;
+    VarNodePair() = default;
+
+  private:
+    VarNodePair(const VarNodePair &) = delete;
+    VarNodePair &operator=(const VarNodePair &) = delete;
+  };
+
+public:
+  explicit VariableMap(Cfg *Func)
+      : Func(Func), NumVars(Func->getNumVariables()), Map(NumVars) {}
+  /// Reset the mappings at the start of a block.
+  void reset(const CfgNode *CurNode) { Node = CurNode; }
+  /// Get Var's current mapping (or Var itself if it has no mapping yet).
+  Variable *get(Variable *Var) const {
+    const SizeT VarNum = getVarNum(Var);
+    Variable *MappedVar = Map[VarNum].Var;
+    if (MappedVar == nullptr)
+      return Var;
+    if (Map[VarNum].Node != Node)
+      return Var;
+    return MappedVar;
+  }
+  /// Create a new linked Variable in the LinkedTo chain, and set it as Var's
+  /// latest mapping.
+  Variable *makeLinked(Variable *Var) {
+    Variable *NewVar = Func->makeVariable(Var->getType());
+    NewVar->setRegClass(Var->getRegClass());
+    NewVar->setLinkedTo(get(Var));
+    const SizeT VarNum = getVarNum(Var);
+    Map[VarNum].Var = NewVar;
+    Map[VarNum].Node = Node;
+    return NewVar;
+  }
+  /// Given Var that is LinkedTo some other variable, re-splice it into the
+  /// LinkedTo chain so that the chain is ordered by Variable::getIndex().
+  void spliceBlockLocalLinkedToChain(Variable *Var) {
+    Variable *LinkedTo = Var->getLinkedTo();
+    assert(LinkedTo != nullptr);
+    assert(Var->getIndex() > LinkedTo->getIndex());
+    const SizeT VarNum = getVarNum(LinkedTo);
+    Variable *Link = Map[VarNum].Var;
+    if (Link == nullptr || Map[VarNum].Node != Node)
+      return;
+    Variable *LinkParent = Link->getLinkedTo();
+    while (LinkParent != nullptr && LinkParent->getIndex() >= Var->getIndex()) {
+      Link = LinkParent;
+      LinkParent = Link->getLinkedTo();
+    }
+    Var->setLinkedTo(LinkParent);
+    Link->setLinkedTo(Var);
+  }
+
+private:
+  Cfg *const Func;
+  // NumVars is for the size of the Map array.  It can be const because any new
+  // Variables created during the splitting pass don't need to be mapped.
+  const SizeT NumVars;
+  CfgVector<VarNodePair> Map;
+  const CfgNode *Node = nullptr;
+  /// Get Var's VarNum, and do some validation.
+  SizeT getVarNum(Variable *Var) const {
+    const SizeT VarNum = Var->getIndex();
+    assert(VarNum < NumVars);
+    return VarNum;
+  }
+};
+
+/// LocalSplittingState tracks the necessary splitting state across
+/// instructions.
+class LocalSplittingState {

[John, 2016/08/01 14:17:32]

This is not really a State, it contains the State for Local Variable Splitting.
A State would consist of a bunch of data, and maybe some accessors (although I
tend to think of State types as no-method types.) This class does a lot more
than keeping track of state -- it actually performs *all* of local variable
splitting logic. This class is the actual local variable splitter. Consider
renaming it (bonus points if the name does not contain a verb :))

[Jim Stichnoth, 2016/08/01 15:13:50]

Changed to "class LocalVariableSplitter Splitter".

+  LocalSplittingState() = delete;
+  LocalSplittingState(const LocalSplittingState &) = delete;
+  LocalSplittingState &operator=(const LocalSplittingState &) = delete;
+
+public:
+  explicit LocalSplittingState(Cfg *Func)
+      : Target(Func->getTarget()), VarMap(Func) {}
+  /// setNode() is called before processing the instructions of a block.
+  void setNode(CfgNode *CurNode) {
+    Node = CurNode;
+    VarMap.reset(Node);
+    LinkedToFixups.clear();
+  }
+  /// finalizeNode() is called after all instructions in the block are
+  /// processed.
+  void finalizeNode() {
+    // Splice in any preexisting LinkedTo links into the single chain.  These
+    // are the ones that were recorded during setInst().
+    for (Variable *Var : LinkedToFixups) {
+      VarMap.spliceBlockLocalLinkedToChain(Var);
+    }
+  }
+  /// setInst() is called before processing the next instruction.  The iterators
+  /// are the insertion points for a new instructions, depending on whether the
+  /// new instruction should be inserted before or after the current
+  /// instruction.
+  void setInst(Inst *CurInst, InstList::iterator Cur, InstList::iterator Next) {

[John, 2016/08/01 14:17:32]

isn't it possible to infer CurInst from Cur, and vice versa?

[Jim Stichnoth, 2016/08/01 15:13:51]

Not if CurInst is a phi instruction.  (I think I had this in mind with respect
to my phi TODO, and actually demonstrated in the later patchset.)

+    Instr = CurInst;
+    Dest = Instr->getDest();
+    IterCur = Cur;
+    IterNext = Next;
+    ShouldSkipThisInstruction = false;
+    ShouldSkipAllInstructions = false;
+    // Note any preexisting LinkedTo relationships that were created during
+    // target lowering.  Record them in LinkedToFixups which is then processed
+    // in finalizeNode().
+    if (Dest != nullptr && Dest->getLinkedTo() != nullptr) {
+      LinkedToFixups.emplace_back(Dest);
+    }
+  }
+  bool shouldSkipThisInstruction() const { return ShouldSkipThisInstruction; }

[John, 2016/08/01 14:17:32]

perhaps this should

return ShouldSkipThisInstructions || shouldSkipAllInstructions();

After all, if you're skipping all instructions, you're also skipping this
instruction.

[Jim Stichnoth, 2016/08/01 15:13:51]

I think I sidestepped this issue with the later patchset, which gets rid of this
explicit state.

+  bool shouldSkipAllInstructions() const { return ShouldSkipAllInstructions; }
+  bool isUnconditionallyExecuted() const { return WaitingForLabel == nullptr; }
+
+  /// Note: the handle*() functions set the ShouldSkipThisInstruction flag to
+  /// indicate that the instruction has now been handled and that the
+  /// instruction loop should continue to the next instruction in the block.  In
+  /// addition, they set the ShouldSkipAllInstructions flag to indicate that no

[John, 2016/08/01 14:17:32]

If it indicates that no more instructions should be processed, then call this
SkipRemainingInsts?

[Jim Stichnoth, 2016/08/01 15:13:51]

Done.

+  /// more instructions in the block should be processed.
+
+  /// Process an "unwanted" instruction by setting the ShouldSkipThisInstruction
+  /// flag as necessary.
+  void handleUnwantedInstruction() {

[John, 2016/08/01 14:17:32]

Maybe return bool, and rename this to

isUnwantedInstruction()

[Jim Stichnoth, 2016/08/01 15:13:51]

I did change all the handle*() functions to return bool.

I'd kinda like to keep the "handle" prefix -- for consistency with the other
names, and also in case some horrible future instruction needs to be "handled"
by skipping the remaining instructions.

+    // We can limit the splitting to an arbitrary subset of the instructions,
+    // and still expect correct code.  As such, we can do instruction-subset
+    // bisection to help debug any problems in this pass.
+    static constexpr char AnInstructionHasNoName[] = "";
+    if (!BuildDefs::minimal() &&
+        !getFlags().matchSplitInsts(AnInstructionHasNoName,
+                                    Instr->getNumber())) {
+      ShouldSkipThisInstruction = true;
+      return;
+    }
+    if (!llvm::isa<InstTarget>(Instr)) {
+      // Ignore non-lowered instructions like FakeDef/FakeUse.
+      ShouldSkipThisInstruction = true;
+      return;
+    }
+  }
+
+  /// Process a potential label instruction.
+  void handleLabel() {

[John, 2016/08/01 14:17:32]

Maybe return bool, and rename this to

isLabel()

[Jim Stichnoth, 2016/08/01 15:13:51]

Similar to above.  I like to keep "handle" because it changes some state,
whereas I usually expect an "is*()" function to be const.

+    if (!Instr->isLabel())
+      return;
+    ShouldSkipThisInstruction = true;
+    // A Label instruction shouldn't have any operands, so it can be handled
+    // right here and then move on.
+    assert(Dest == nullptr);
+    assert(Instr->getSrcSize() == 0);
+    if (Instr == WaitingForLabel) {

[John, 2016/08/01 14:17:32]

this approach will fail with "deep" short-circuiting. Perhaps it could be fixed
with a list of labels instead of a single label.

[Jim Stichnoth, 2016/08/01 19:55:36]

By "fail", I assume you mean the entire short-circuiting section will fall back
to the non-splitting code -- and not that it could produce incorrect code?

FWIW, spec2k seems to work correctly with -enable-sc (short-circuit optimization
for x8632 and x8664) so hopefully there are no correctness problems...

+      // If we found the forward-branch-target Label instruction we're waiting
+      // for, then clear the WaitingForLabel state.
+      WaitingForLabel = nullptr;
+    } else if (WaitingForLabel == nullptr && WaitingForBranchTo == nullptr) {
+      // If we found a new Label instruction while the WaitingFor* state is
+      // clear, then set things up for this being a backward branch target.
+      WaitingForBranchTo = Instr;
+    } else {
+      // We see something we don't understand, so skip to the next block.
+      ShouldSkipAllInstructions = true;
+    }
+  }
+
+  /// Process a potential intra-block branch instruction.
+  void handleIntraBlockBranch() {

[John, 2016/08/01 14:17:32]

Maybe return bool, and rename this to

isIntraBlockBranch()

[Jim Stichnoth, 2016/08/01 15:13:51]

(same as above with respect to state changes)

+    const Inst *Label = Instr->getIntraBlockBranchTarget();
+    if (Label == nullptr)
+      return;
+    ShouldSkipThisInstruction = true;
+    // An intra-block branch instruction shouldn't have any operands, so it can
+    // be handled right here and then move on.
+    assert(Dest == nullptr);
+    assert(Instr->getSrcSize() == 0);
+    if (WaitingForBranchTo == Label && WaitingForLabel == nullptr) {
+      WaitingForBranchTo = nullptr;
+    } else if (WaitingForBranchTo == nullptr &&
+               (WaitingForLabel == nullptr || WaitingForLabel == Label)) {
+      WaitingForLabel = Label;
+    } else {
+      // We see something we don't understand, so skip to the next block.
+      ShouldSkipAllInstructions = true;
+    }
+  }
+
+  /// Specially process a potential "Variable=Variable" assignment instruction,
+  /// when it conforms to certain patterns.
+  void handleVarAssign() {

[John, 2016/08/01 14:17:32]

Maybe return bool, and rename this to

isTrivialVarAssign()

[Jim Stichnoth, 2016/08/01 15:13:51]

I still like "handle" because of the possible side effect of splitting.

I changed it to handleSimpleVarAssign().

+    if (!Instr->isVarAssign())
+      return;
+    const bool DestIsInf = isInf(Dest);
+    const bool DestIsAllocable = isAllocable(Dest);
+    auto *SrcVar = llvm::cast<Variable>(Instr->getSrc(0));
+    const bool SrcIsInf = isInf(SrcVar);
+    const bool SrcIsAllocable = isAllocable(SrcVar);
+    if (DestIsInf && SrcIsInf) {
+      // The instruction:
+      //   t:inf = u:inf
+      // No transformation is needed.
+      ShouldSkipThisInstruction = true;
+      return;
+    }
+    if (DestIsInf && SrcIsAllocable && Dest->getType() == SrcVar->getType()) {
+      // The instruction:
+      //   t:inf = v
+      // gets transformed to:
+      //   t:inf = v1
+      //   v2 = t:inf
+      // where:
+      //   v1 := map[v]
+      //   v2 := linkTo(v)
+      //   map[v] := v2
+      //
+      // If both v2 and its linkedToStackRoot get a stack slot, then "v2=t:inf"
+      // is recognized as a redundant assignment and elided.
+      //
+      // Note that if the dest and src types are different, then this is
+      // actually a truncation operation, which would make "v2=t:inf" an invalid
+      // instruction.  In this case, the type test will make it fall through to
+      // the general case below.
+      Variable *OldMapped = VarMap.get(SrcVar);
+      Instr->replaceSource(0, OldMapped);
+      if (isUnconditionallyExecuted()) {
+        // Only create new mapping state if the instruction is unconditionally
+        // executed.
+        Variable *NewMapped = VarMap.makeLinked(SrcVar);
+        Inst *Mov = Target->createLoweredMove(NewMapped, Dest);
+        Node->getInsts().insert(IterNext, Mov);
+      }
+      ShouldSkipThisInstruction = true;
+      return;
+    }
+    if (DestIsAllocable && SrcIsInf) {
+      // The instruction:
+      //   v = t:inf
+      // gets transformed to:
+      //   v = t:inf
+      //   v2 = t:inf
+      // where:
+      //   v2 := linkTo(v)
+      //   map[v] := v2
+      //
+      // If both v2 and v get a stack slot, then "v2=t:inf" is recognized as a
+      // redundant assignment and elided.
+      if (isUnconditionallyExecuted()) {
+        // Only create new mapping state if the instruction is unconditionally
+        // executed.
+        Variable *NewMapped = VarMap.makeLinked(Dest);
+        Inst *Mov = Target->createLoweredMove(NewMapped, SrcVar);
+        Node->getInsts().insert(IterNext, Mov);
+      } else {
+        // For a conditionally executed instruction, add a redefinition of the
+        // original Dest mapping, without creating a new linked variable.
+        Variable *OldMapped = VarMap.get(Dest);
+        Inst *Mov = Target->createLoweredMove(OldMapped, SrcVar);
+        Mov->setDestRedefined();
+        Node->getInsts().insert(IterNext, Mov);
+      }
+      ShouldSkipThisInstruction = true;
+      return;
+    }
+    assert(!ShouldSkipThisInstruction);
+    assert(!ShouldSkipAllInstructions);
+  }
+
+  /// Process an arbitrary instruction.
+  void handleGeneralInst() {
+    const bool DestIsAllocable = isAllocable(Dest);
+    // The (non-variable-assignment) instruction:
+    //   ... = F(v)
+    // where v is not infinite-weight, gets transformed to:
+    //   v2 = v1
+    //   ... = F(v1)
+    // where:
+    //   v1 := map[v]
+    //   v2 := linkTo(v)
+    //   map[v] := v2
+    // After that, if the "..." dest=u is not infinite-weight, append:
+    //   u2 = u
+    // where:
+    //   u2 := linkTo(u)
+    //   map[u] := u2
+    for (SizeT i = 0; i < Instr->getSrcSize(); ++i) {
+      // Iterate over the top-level src vars.  Don't bother to dig into
+      // e.g. MemOperands because their vars should all be infinite-weight.
+      // (This assumption would need to change if the pass were done
+      // pre-lowering.)
+      if (auto *SrcVar = llvm::dyn_cast<Variable>(Instr->getSrc(i))) {
+        const bool SrcIsAllocable = isAllocable(SrcVar);
+        if (SrcIsAllocable) {
+          Variable *OldMapped = VarMap.get(SrcVar);
+          if (isUnconditionallyExecuted()) {
+            Variable *NewMapped = VarMap.makeLinked(SrcVar);
+            Inst *Mov = Target->createLoweredMove(NewMapped, OldMapped);
+            Node->getInsts().insert(IterCur, Mov);
+          }
+          Instr->replaceSource(i, OldMapped);
+        }
+      }
+    }
+    // Transformation of Dest is the same as the "v=t:inf" case above.
+    if (DestIsAllocable) {
+      if (isUnconditionallyExecuted()) {
+        Variable *NewMapped = VarMap.makeLinked(Dest);
+        Inst *Mov = Target->createLoweredMove(NewMapped, Dest);
+        Node->getInsts().insert(IterNext, Mov);
+      } else {
+        Variable *OldMapped = VarMap.get(Dest);
+        Inst *Mov = Target->createLoweredMove(OldMapped, Dest);
+        Mov->setDestRedefined();
+        Node->getInsts().insert(IterNext, Mov);
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+private:
+  TargetLowering *Target;
+  CfgNode *Node = nullptr;
+  Inst *Instr = nullptr;
+  Variable *Dest = nullptr;
+  InstList::iterator IterCur;
+  InstList::iterator IterNext;
+  bool ShouldSkipThisInstruction = false;
+  bool ShouldSkipAllInstructions = false;
+  VariableMap VarMap;
+  CfgVector<Variable *> LinkedToFixups;
+  /// WaitingForLabel and WaitingForBranchTo are for tracking intra-block
+  /// control flow.
+  const Inst *WaitingForLabel = nullptr;
+  const Inst *WaitingForBranchTo = nullptr;
+};
+
+} // end of anonymous namespace
+
+/// Within each basic block, rewrite Variable references in terms of chained
+/// copies of the original Variable.  For example:
+///   A = B + C
+/// might be rewritten as:
+///   B1 = B
+///   C1 = C
+///   A = B + C
+///   A1 = A
+/// and then:
+///   D = A + B
+/// might be rewritten as:
+///   A2 = A1
+///   B2 = B1
+///   D = A1 + B1
+///   D1 = D
+///
+/// The purpose is to present the linear-scan register allocator with smaller
+/// live ranges, to help mitigate its "all or nothing" allocation strategy,
+/// while counting on its preference mechanism to keep the split versions in the
+/// same register when possible.
+///
+/// When creating new Variables, A2 is linked to A1 which is linked to A, and
+/// similar for the other Variable linked-to chains.  Rewrites apply only to
+/// Variables where mayHaveReg() is true.
+///
+/// At code emission time, redundant linked-to stack assignments will be
+/// recognized and elided.  To illustrate using the above example, if A1 gets a
+/// register but A and A2 are on the stack, the "A2=A1" store instruction is
+/// redundant since A and A2 share the same stack slot and A1 originated from A.
+///
+/// Simple assignment instructions are rewritten slightly differently, to take
+/// maximal advantage of Variables known to have registers.
+///
+/// In general, there may be several valid ways to rewrite an instruction: add
+/// the new assignment instruction either before or after the original
+/// instruction, and rewrite the original instruction with either the old or the
+/// new variable mapping.  We try to pick a strategy most likely to avoid
+/// potential performance problems.  For example, try to avoid storing to the
+/// stack and then immediately reloading from the same location.  One
+/// consequence is that code might be generated that loads a register from a
+/// stack location, followed almost immediately by another use of the same stack
+/// location, despite its value already being available in a register as a
+/// result of the first instruction.  However, the performance impact here is
+/// likely to be negligible, and a simple availability peephole optimization
+/// could clean it up.
+///
+/// This pass potentially adds a lot of new instructions and variables, and as
+/// such there are compile-time performance concerns, particularly with liveness
+/// analysis and register allocation.  Note that for liveness analysis, the new
+/// variables have single-block liveness, so they don't increase the size of the
+/// liveness bit vectors that need to be merged across blocks.  As a result, the
+/// performance impact is likely to be linearly related to the number of new
+/// instructions, rather than number of new variables times number of blocks
+/// which would be the case if they were multi-block variables.
+void splitBlockLocalVariables(Cfg *Func) {
+  if (!getFlags().getSplitLocalVars())
+    return;
+  TimerMarker _(TimerStack::TT_splitLocalVars, Func);
+  LocalSplittingState State(Func);
+  // TODO(stichnot): Fix this mechanism for LinkedTo variables and stack slot
+  // assignment.
+  //
+  // To work around shortcomings with stack frame mapping, we want to arrange
+  // LinkedTo structure such that within one block, the LinkedTo structure
+  // leading to a root forms a list, not a tree.  A LinkedTo root can have
+  // multiple children linking to it, but only one per block.  Furthermore,
+  // because stack slot mapping processes variables in numerical order, the
+  // LinkedTo chain needs to be ordered such that when A->getLinkedTo()==B, then
+  // A->getIndex()>B->getIndex().
+  //
+  // To effect this, while processing a block we keep track of preexisting
+  // LinkedTo relationships via the LinkedToFixups vector, and at the end of the
+  // block we splice them in such that the block has a single chain for each
+  // root, ordered by getIndex() value.
+  CfgVector<Variable *> LinkedToFixups;
+  for (CfgNode *Node : Func->getNodes()) {
+    // Clear the VarMap and LinkedToFixups at the start of every block.
+    LinkedToFixups.clear();
+    State.setNode(Node);
+    auto &Insts = Node->getInsts();
+    auto Iter = Insts.begin();
+    auto IterEnd = Insts.end();
+    // TODO(stichnot): Also create assignments/mappings for phi dest variables.
+    InstList::iterator NextIter;
+    for (; Iter != IterEnd && !State.shouldSkipAllInstructions();
+         Iter = NextIter) {
+      NextIter = Iter;
+      ++NextIter;
+      Inst *Instr = iteratorToInst(Iter);
+      if (Instr->isDeleted())
+        continue;
+      State.setInst(Instr, Iter, NextIter);
+
+      // Before doing any transformations, take care of the bookkeeping for
+      // intra-block branching.
+      //
+      // This is tricky because the transformation for one instruction may
+      // depend on a transformation for a previous instruction, but if that
+      // previous instruction is not dynamically executed due to intra-block
+      // control flow, it may lead to an inconsistent state and incorrect code.
+      //
+      // We want to handle some simple cases, and reject some others:
+      //
+      // 1. For something like a select instruction, we could have:
+      //   test cond
+      //   dest = src_false
+      //   branch conditionally to label
+      //   dest = src_true
+      //   label:
+      //
+      // Between the conditional branch and the label, we need to treat dest and
+      // src variables specially, specifically not creating any new state.
+      //
+      // 2. Some 64-bit atomic instructions may be lowered to a loop:
+      //   label:
+      //   ...
+      //   branch conditionally to label
+      //
+      // No special treatment is needed, but it's worth tracking so that case #1
+      // above can also be handled.
+      //
+      // 3. Advanced switch lowering can create really complex intra-block
+      // control flow, so when we recognize this, we should just stop splitting
+      // for the remainder of the block (which isn't much since a switch
+      // instruction is a terminator).
+      //
+      // 4. Other complex lowering, e.g. an i64 icmp on a 32-bit architecture,
+      // can result in an if/then/else like structure with two labels.  One
+      // possibility would be to suspect splitting for the remainder of the
+      // lowered instruction, and then resume for the remainder of the block,
+      // but since we don't have high-level instruction markers, we might as
+      // well just stop splitting for the remainder of the block.
+      State.handleLabel();

[John, 2016/08/01 14:17:32]

if these returned bool, this could be

if (State.isLabel() ||
    State.isIntraBlockBranch() ||
    State.isUnwanted() ||
    State.isTrivialVarAssign()) {
  continue;
}

[Jim Stichnoth, 2016/08/01 15:13:51]

Done, in the later patchset.

+      State.handleIntraBlockBranch();
+      State.handleUnwantedInstruction();
+      if (State.shouldSkipThisInstruction())
+        continue;
+
+      // Intra-block bookkeeping is complete, now do the transformations.
+
+      // Determine the transformation based on the kind of instruction, and
+      // whether its Variables are infinite-weight.  New instructions can be

[John, 2016/08/01 14:17:32]

... and you can get rid of the special-case for var assigns below.

[Jim Stichnoth, 2016/08/01 15:13:51]

I think it's much cleaner now in the later patchset.

+      // inserted before the current instruction via Iter, or after the current
+      // instruction via NextIter.
+      if (Instr->isVarAssign()) {
+        State.handleVarAssign();
+        if (State.shouldSkipThisInstruction())
+          continue;
+      }
+      State.handleGeneralInst();
+      // Don't bother checking State.shouldSkipThisInstruction() since this the
+      // end of the loop.
+    }
+    State.finalizeNode();
+  }
+
+  Func->dump("After splitting local variables");
+}
+
+} // end of namespace Ice