On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Here's the next attempt at the MSVC thiscall support patch, this time >>>>>> with test cases and an improved tablegen declaration. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the first time I've done a test case for clang or llvm >>>>>> codegen, so please pay special attention to the test cases and let me >>>>>> know if I'm off-base (and what I should do differently). >>>>> >>>>> You might want to make the LLVM testcase a bit stronger by using >>>>> CHECK-NEXT. >>>> >>>> Does CHECK-NEXT basically chain the checks together to check several >>>> lines as a group? >>> >>> Basically, yes. >> >> The problem is that the assembly is different between O levels. So >> -O0 does leal, leal, but -O1 does leal, movl. >> >> Is there a way for me to handle this in the test case, or should I >> just be explicit about the O level and its behavior? > > We always run tests at the same -O level, so you shouldn't worry about > that. That said, if you think splitting your testcase into multiple > functions would make it more stable, please do that.
Here's another shot at the patch -- this time, I am using the proper way to test for the Win32 ABI, and I've updated the X86 codegen test case so that it's a bit more clear. ~Aaron
msvc thiscall llvm.patch
Description: Binary data
msvc thiscall clang.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
