On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Fariborz Jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 ?
No, that is completely different. - Daniel > - Fariborz > >> >> >> - Daniel >> >>> >>> John. > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
