On Feb 7, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Tim Northover <[email protected]> wrote:
> Author: tnorthover
> Date: Thu Feb  7 09:39:16 2013
> New Revision: 174627
> 
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=174627&view=rev
> Log:
> FileCheckize volatile test

I appreciate the thought, but changing it from just counting the number of times
'volatile' shows up to, essentially, putting a minimum on the number of times
'volatile load' shows up is not a huge improvement.  Would you mind
further improving this test to (1) actually match the operands and (2) do the
negative testing for the lines which we expect to produce non-volatile loads?

John.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to