void marked an inline comment as done. void added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/CodeGen/builtin-constant-p.c:2 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown -emit-llvm -o - %s -O2 | FileCheck --check-prefix=O2 %s +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown -emit-llvm -o - %s -O0 | FileCheck --check-prefix=O0 %s ---------------- efriedma wrote: > efriedma wrote: > > void wrote: > > > efriedma wrote: > > > > Given this code doesn't check the optimization level anymore, do you > > > > still need separate check prefixes for `O2` and `O0`. Or if that > > > > doesn't work for everything, maybe you could share a check prefix for > > > > some of the tests? (Maybe it would make sense to check IR generated > > > > using `-disable-llvm-passes`.) > > > The bug only triggered at `O0`, so I still want to test it without > > > optimizations. Note that we do check optimization levels during code > > > generation to determine if we should generate an `is.constant` intrinsic. > > You can use something like "-check-prefixes=CHECK,O0" to reduce the > > duplication. > That doesn't pass. > > More specifically, I was thinking something more along the lines of using > "--check-prefixes=CHECK,O2" for the first run, and > "--check-prefixes=CHECK,O0" for the second run; then you can use "CHECK:" for > the common lines and "O2:"/"O0:" for the lines that are different. I think think that works. The thing is that there should rarely be common lines between `O2` and `O0`. I understand what you're going for here, but I don't think it's beneficial to this testcase. However, I don't need to change all of the `CHECK`s either. I came up with a compromise... Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55616/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55616 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
