leonardchan added inline comments.
================ Comment at: compiler-rt/test/msan/chained_origin_empty_stack_npm.cpp:4 +// this test. +// RUN: %clangxx_msan -fsanitize-memory-track-origins=2 \ +// RUN: -fexperimental-new-pass-manager -O3 %s -o %t && \ ---------------- nemanjai wrote: > nemanjai wrote: > > vitalybuka wrote: > > > Why not to add RUN: section with -fexperimental-new-pass-manager into > > > original tests? > > I just felt that this is a simpler way forward for a couple of reasons: > > 1. Once the default switches, it is a very obvious change to just delete > > these files rather than digging through the code inside the existing ones > > 2. Many of the tests actually contain the testing that is split up into > > multiple steps so I would have to duplicate all the steps for the NPM vs. > > default builds: > > - compile/link > > - run with one option set and FileCheck > > - run with another option set and FileCheck > > - rinse/repeat > > (example: chained_origin_limits.cpp) > > > > But of course, if there are strong objections to this approach, I can > > certainly go the other way. > Seems Phabricator reformatted what I wrote here. Points 3, 4, 5, 6 were > supposed to be sub-bullets for 2. > Basically, I tried to describe that in the mentioned test case, I would have > to replicate a number of subsequent steps for each `RUN` directive that > invokes the compiler. If we're going this way, I think the original tests should explicitly have `-fno-experimental-new-pass-manager`. Also no strong preference towards either way. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77249/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77249 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
