[Analysis] Make order of analysis executions more stable

When debugging and using debug-pass-manager (e.g. in regression tests)
we prefer a consistent order in which analysis passes are executed.
But when for example doing

  return MyClass(AM.getResult<LoopAnalysis>(F),
                 AM.getResult<DominatorTreeAnalysis>(F));

then the order in which LoopAnalysis and DominatorTreeAnalysis isn't
guaranteed, and might for example depend on which compiler that is
used when building LLVM.

I've not scanned the full source tree, but this fixes some occurances
of the above pattern found in lib/Analysis.

This problem was discussed briefly in review for D146206.

1 files changed, 7 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp b/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp
index aee14ed..d8d61d6 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp
@@ -2723,11 +2723,13 @@ bool LoopAccessInfoManager::invalidate(
 }
 
 LoopAccessInfoManager LoopAccessAnalysis::run(Function &F,
-                                              FunctionAnalysisManager &AM) {
-  return LoopAccessInfoManager(
-      AM.getResult<ScalarEvolutionAnalysis>(F), AM.getResult<AAManager>(F),
-      AM.getResult<DominatorTreeAnalysis>(F), AM.getResult<LoopAnalysis>(F),
-      &AM.getResult<TargetLibraryAnalysis>(F));
+                                              FunctionAnalysisManager &FAM) {
+  auto &SE = FAM.getResult<ScalarEvolutionAnalysis>(F);
+  auto &AA = FAM.getResult<AAManager>(F);
+  auto &DT = FAM.getResult<DominatorTreeAnalysis>(F);
+  auto &LI = FAM.getResult<LoopAnalysis>(F);
+  auto &TLI = FAM.getResult<TargetLibraryAnalysis>(F);
+  return LoopAccessInfoManager(SE, AA, DT, LI, &TLI);
 }
 
 char LoopAccessLegacyAnalysis::ID = 0;