1 files changed, 0 insertions, 66 deletions
diff --git a/dev-lang/rust/files/1.61.0-llvm_selectInterleaveCount.patch b/dev-lang/rust/files/1.61.0-llvm_selectInterleaveCount.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 71a4e8df75d8..000000000000
--- a/dev-lang/rust/files/1.61.0-llvm_selectInterleaveCount.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,66 +0,0 @@
-From fe8a27acd716a42667f5a572f52f2b04636010ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
-From: Florian Hahn <flo@fhahn.com>
-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 22:52:42 +0100
-Subject: [PATCH] [LV] Handle zero cost loops in selectInterleaveCount.
-
-In some case, like in the added test case, we can reach
-selectInterleaveCount with loops that actually have a cost of 0.
-
-Unfortunately a loop cost of 0 is also used to communicate that the cost
-has not been computed yet. To resolve the crash, bail out if the cost
-remains zero after computing it.
-
-This seems like the best option, as there are multiple code paths that
-return a cost of 0 to force a computation in selectInterleaveCount.
-Computing the cost at multiple places up front there would unnecessarily
-complicate the logic.
-
-Fixes #54413.
-
-(cherry picked from commit ecb4171dcbf1b433c9963fd605a74898303e850d)
----
- .../Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp    | 22 ++++----
- ...ct-interleave-count-loop-with-cost-zero.ll | 50 +++++++++++++++++++
- 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
- create mode 100644 llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/X86/pr54413-select-interleave-count-loop-with-cost-zero.ll
-
-diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp
-index 21c16f07e237..e1cc7946073e 100644
---- a/src/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp
-+++ b/src/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp
-@@ -6035,6 +6035,18 @@ unsigned LoopVectorizationCostModel::selectInterleaveCount(ElementCount VF,
-       !(InterleaveSmallLoopScalarReduction && HasReductions && VF.isScalar()))
-     return 1;
- 
-+  // If we did not calculate the cost for VF (because the user selected the VF)
-+  // then we calculate the cost of VF here.
-+  if (LoopCost == 0) {
-+    InstructionCost C = expectedCost(VF).first;
-+    assert(C.isValid() && "Expected to have chosen a VF with valid cost");
-+    LoopCost = *C.getValue();
-+
-+    // Loop body is free and there is no need for interleaving.
-+    if (LoopCost == 0)
-+      return 1;
-+  }
-+
-   RegisterUsage R = calculateRegisterUsage({VF})[0];
-   // We divide by these constants so assume that we have at least one
-   // instruction that uses at least one register.
-@@ -6126,16 +6138,6 @@ unsigned LoopVectorizationCostModel::selectInterleaveCount(ElementCount VF,
- 
-   assert(IC > 0 && "Interleave count must be greater than 0.");
- 
--  // If we did not calculate the cost for VF (because the user selected the VF)
--  // then we calculate the cost of VF here.
--  if (LoopCost == 0) {
--    InstructionCost C = expectedCost(VF).first;
--    assert(C.isValid() && "Expected to have chosen a VF with valid cost");
--    LoopCost = *C.getValue();
--  }
--
--  assert(LoopCost && "Non-zero loop cost expected");
--
-   // Interleave if we vectorized this loop and there is a reduction that could
-   // benefit from interleaving.
-   if (VF.isVector() && HasReductions) {