Rafael Espíndola <[email protected]> writes: >> That seems like a good idea, but I need some input on where such a test >> would go and how to structure it. I don't really see any similar tests. >> From what I can see, EmitBranchOnBoolExpr is basically doing some >> trivial constant folding so that our codegen at -O0 is reasonable. > > If you can get a C testcase it should probably go in clang/test/CodeGen.
What do you think of something like this? I'm not entirely convinced this is a very good test, but it's hard to write "avoid extraneous basic blocks" in test form. The best I could think of was avoiding unnecessary phis.
>From 107920588c4f79c4d2d72709b2fa2e166c82d620 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Justin Bogner <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:53:45 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] CodeGen: Test that simple expressions are simplified at -O1 --- test/CodeGen/branch-on-bool.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) create mode 100644 test/CodeGen/branch-on-bool.c diff --git a/test/CodeGen/branch-on-bool.c b/test/CodeGen/branch-on-bool.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..78dae1b --- /dev/null +++ b/test/CodeGen/branch-on-bool.c @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +// RUN: %clang %s -O0 -emit-llvm -S -o - | FileCheck %s + +void foo(); +void bar(); + +void fold_if(int a, int b) { + // CHECK: define {{.*}} @fold_if( + // CHECK-NOT: = phi + // CHECK: } + if (a && b) + foo(); + else + bar(); +} + +void fold_for(int a, int b) { + // CHECK: define {{.*}} @fold_for( + // CHECK-NOT: = phi + // CHECK: } + for (int i = 0; a && i < b; ++i) foo(); + for (int i = 0; a || i < b; ++i) bar(); +} -- 1.8.3.4 (Apple Git-47)
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
