On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > 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.
Isn't it llc -march=c ? - Fariborz > > > - Daniel > >> >> John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
