If this was a fix for clang’s code (IR) generation or an llvm optimization, it would make sense to test the IR. I felt it was a little odd to test the IR for a fix in one of the header files, since the mistake doesn’t involve clang’s code-gen.
If I were to write an IR test, I would probably check the string “_mm_packs_pi32”. I don’t know if this is possible, but wouldn’t it be better to somehow test the string “_mm_packs_pi32” in the source code (using clang -E)? On May 22, 2014, at 9:29 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Akira Hatanaka <[email protected]> wrote: > I thought about adding a test case, but wasn’t sure how this fix should be > tested. > > I don’t think it’s a good idea to check the bitcode clang generates, is it? > > We routinely test the generated IR (without optimizations)? > > > On May 22, 2014, at 8:35 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Akira Hatanaka <[email protected]> wrote: >> Author: ahatanak >> Date: Thu May 22 19:38:07 2014 >> New Revision: 209489 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=209489&view=rev >> Log: >> Fix a bug in xmmintrin.h. >> >> The last step of _mm_cvtps_pi16 should use _mm_packs_pi32, which is a >> function >> that reads two __m64 values and packs four 32-bit values into four 16-bit >> values. >> >> This (somewhat obviously) needs a test case. > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
