On 1 December 2015 at 11:44, James Molloy via cfe-commits <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > In summary, I agree with you that we need tests for both Clang and LLVM > separately. However I also think the full-trip tests add significant value > and wouldn't like to see them removed, and there's significant prior art in > this area so if we did decide they needed to be gone, we'd need a good > discussion on how to regain the testing coverage we'd lose.
I agree with James on all accounts. IR tests need to be written, but assembly tests in Clang are not a bad idea at all. You can have a Clang test to IR and an LLVM test form IR to assembly, but if these IRs are not the same (because time passes, people forget about updating tests), then you have a serious problem that you can't see. Having assembly tests in Clang mean that the right instructions are being picked from the right high-level C code. If Clang stops producing them, especially in the case of SIMD, then the patch who broke it needs fixing or reverting. I'd only make one observation regarding -O3 vs. a specific list of passes. Each way has its own faults and I'm not particularly pending to either one, but one has to consider what -O3 means and what you really want. If you want vectorization, or hard-fp, then you should ask them by name. If all you want is "optimal" code, and the source is simple enough that it'd be impossible not to get them, then -O3 should suffice. cheers, --renato _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
