nickdesaulniers added a comment.
Looks good, will likely approve after these 2 questions.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/MisExpect.cpp:157-158
+ // In these cases we should not emit any diagnostic related to misexpect.
+ if (NOps < 3)
+ return;
+
----------------
would an `assert` be more appropriate then? If cases 1/2/3 above are all
highly unlikely, I'd make this an assert rather than early return.
================
Comment at: llvm/test/Transforms/PGOProfile/misexpect-branch-correct.ll:79
+
+attributes #0 = { nounwind "correctly-rounded-divide-sqrt-fp-math"="false"
"disable-tail-calls"="false" "frame-pointer"="none"
"less-precise-fpmad"="false" "min-legal-vector-width"="0"
"no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-jump-tables"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false"
"no-signed-zeros-fp-math"="false" "no-trapping-math"="false"
"stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-features"="+cx8,+mmx,+sse,+sse2,+x87"
"unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
+attributes #1 = { argmemonly nounwind willreturn }
----------------
does the debug info need to be in all of these unit tests? If you still have
the C sources handy, `-g0` is extremely handy in generating more concise IR for
unit tests.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
