Unifying function exits with LLVM - c++

Question

Let's say I have this function in C/C++:
int foo(int x) {
if (x <= 1) return 1;
return x * foo(x-1);
}
And I compile it with Clang.
Clang generates the following IR:
; Function Attrs: ssp uwtable
define i32 #_Z3fooi(i32 %x) #0 {
%1 = alloca i32, align 4
%2 = alloca i32, align 4
store i32 %x, i32* %2, align 4
%3 = load i32, i32* %2, align 4
%4 = icmp sle i32 %3, 1
br i1 %4, label %5, label %6
; <label>:5 ; preds = %0
store i32 1, i32* %1, align 4
br label %12
; <label>:6 ; preds = %0
%7 = load i32, i32* %2, align 4
%8 = load i32, i32* %2, align 4
%9 = sub nsw i32 %8, 1
%10 = call i32 #_Z3fooi(i32 %9)
%11 = mul nsw i32 %7, %10
store i32 %11, i32* %1, align 4
br label %12
; <label>:12 ; preds = %6, %5
%13 = load i32, i32* %1, align 4
ret i32 %13
}
As you can see, LLVM passes optimizes out the code and creates a "return register" (where I put the return value), and a "return block" (where the return value is effectively returned).
I'm trying to get the same effect, but when I use SROA pass or the Instruction Combining pass, they translate the exits in a phi instruction:
; Function Attrs: nounwind ssp uwtable
define i32 #__HF3fooTi(i32 %x) #0 {
%1 = icmp sle i32 %x, 1
br i1 %1, label %2, label %3
; <label>:2 ; preds = %0
br label %7
; <label>:3 ; preds = %0
%4 = sub nsw i32 %x, 1
%5 = call i32 #__HF3fooTi(i32 %4)
%6 = mul nsw i32 %x, %5
br label %7
; <label>:7 ; preds = %3, %2
%.0 = phi i32 [ 1, %2 ], [ %6, %3 ]
ret i32 %.0
}
My question is: which solution is faster? And which pass is Clang using to achieve this? (In the Clang source files I found the 2 passes I used, and they give me this different result)