On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:10 AM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 6, 2010, at 5:37 AM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Fariborz Jahanian <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 5:24 AM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Fariborz, >>>> >>>> Is it possible to write this test to actually check the output LLVM IR >>>> to make sure that whatever error was fixed, is fixed? >>>> >>>> - Daniel >>> >>> I am not sure how to write a test which checks for a pattern such as below >>> and passes >>> as we go through iterations of LLVM IR generations: >>> >>> %tmp2 = load i8** %resval ; <i8*> [#uses=1] >>> %1 = bitcast i8* %tmp2 to i8** ; <i8**> [#uses=1] >>> store i8* %tmp, i8** %1 >> >> This doesn't seem like a pattern that would change much, as long as >> the test is written to not depend on the individual names (using >> FileCheck variables). > > Apropos, it would be really handy if FileCheck had a built-in pattern for > LLVM register names; in my experience, that is far-and-away the most common > thing to match.
Yeah, I still think we need better toolage in this direction. Another thing I think would help is an llvm-dis mode that would just print the LLVM IR out in a form that could be filecheckized. - Daniel > > John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
