LukeGeeson added a comment. In D80716#2082356 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80716#2082356>, @LukeGeeson wrote:
> In D80716#2074883 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80716#2074883>, @stuij wrote: > > > In D80716#2073251 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80716#2073251>, @LukeGeeson > > wrote: > > > > > Besides from rebasing to get @pratlucas changes upstream. > > > > > > @stuij please could you confirm if you are happy with this, so I can > > > merge > > > > > > Hi Luke, > > > > For the backend tests it would be good if you would use `CHECK-NEXT` from > > label to ret, like I believe you did in the other patch, using > > `-asm-verbose=0` to get rid of the cruft. > > > Similar to my other comment in the [[ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80752 | other > ]]patch: > > This isn't how to get rid of `kill` statements. In particular if you pass > `-asm-verbose=0` to `llc` in the `RUN` statement then no `CHECK`s are > generated, let alone `kill` statements. > > Instead to get this desired result you run `llc` without that argument, and > then manually remove these unnecessary `kill` lines. This is what I have done > and this should fix this. Patch incoming Further, you cannot use `CHECK-NEXT` if your test function contains such a `kill` statement, unless you manually remove it, and use `CHECK` in place (it fails when running FileCheck as it sees such lines in the output and hence check-next fails if it doesn't expect it). This is just something we must balance if we want clear tests and direct 1-1 correspondence with the result. I've used `CHECK-NEXT` where I can, but `CHECK` where I must CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80716/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80716 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
