john.brawn added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/2013-05-05-IfConvertBug.ll:1-4
; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=thumbv7-apple-ios -mcpu=cortex-a8 | FileCheck %s
; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=thumbv8 | FileCheck -check-prefix=CHECK-V8 %s
-; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=thumbv7 -arm-restrict-it | FileCheck
-check-prefix=CHECK-V8 %s
+; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=thumbv8 -arm-restrict-it | FileCheck
-check-prefix=CHECK-RESTRICT-IT %s
+; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=thumbv7 -arm-restrict-it | FileCheck
-check-prefix=CHECK-RESTRICT-IT %s
----------------
The code generated for -mtriple=thumbv7-apple-ios and -mtriple=thumbv8 is
almost the same, so instead of changing the CHECK-V8 lines and adding new
CHECK-RESTRICT-IT lines, you could instead rename all of the current CHECK-V8
lines to CHECK-RESTRICT-IT and instead have -mtriple=thumbv8 check the CHECK
lines, i.e.
; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=thumbv8 | FileCheck %s
================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/arm-and-tst-peephole.ll:42-62
; V8-LABEL: %tailrecurse.switch
; V8: cmp
+; V8-NEXT: it ne
+; V8-NEXT: bxne lr
+; V8-NEXT: @
+; V8-NEXT: @
+; V8-NEXT: orr.w
----------------
The checks here are kind of a mess, in that if we look at the generated code it
looks like
```
.LBB0_1: @ %tailrecurse.switch
@ in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
cmp r3, #1
it ne
bxne lr
.LBB0_2: @ %sw.bb
@ in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
orr.w r1, r3, r1, lsl #1
adds r2, #4
add.w r12, r12, #1
.LBB0_3: @ %tailrecurse
@ =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1
ldr r3, [r2, #-4]
ands r3, r3, #3
beq .LBB0_2
@ %bb.4: @ %tailrecurse.switch
@ in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
cmp r3, #3
itt eq
moveq r0, r2
bxeq lr
.LBB0_5: @ %tailrecurse.switch
@ in Loop: Header=BB0_3 Depth=1
cmp r3, #2
bne .LBB0_1
@ %bb.6: @ %sw.bb8
add r1, r12
add.w r0, r0, r1
```
We have a load of V8-NEXT lines where it's variously: checking the instruction
opcode; checking the entire instruction; checking for some text that appears in
a comment (e.g. V8-NEXT: %tailrecurse.switch); checking that a comment appears
but not what's in it (e.g. V8-NEXT: @).
I think it would make more sense to restructure so it's a sequence of
```
; V8-LABEL: @ %llvm_ir_name_in_a_comment
; V8: first_instruction_in_block
; V8-NEXT: next_instruction
; v8-NEXT: etc.
```
================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/ARM/arm-bf16-pcs.ll:190
; BASE-THUMB-NEXT: strh.w r0, [sp, #6]
+; BASE-THUMB-NEXT: uxth r1, r0
; BASE-THUMB-NEXT: mov r0, r5
----------------
This, and the cases in other tests where we have a uxth/uxtb that moves, looks
rather strange and not something I'd expect given that there's no IT here. Do
you know what's going on here?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D118044/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D118044
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
