melver wrote:
> Sorry I was unclear - the problem we've found is the seemingly random nature > of the hash has meant people accept whatever change has occurred. I guess in > this case they are considered to be completely random hashes - the TMO random > looking numbers include semantic flags which means the tests check for > explicit values, but there's no reasonable way for someone to understand if > some random looking change in the giant random looking number is a correct > random looking change to a random looking number. > > I'm playing with the tmo behavior to see if I can make something more > useful/meaningfully testable - an ideal solution would be a test only builtin > that produced a human readable string, but that would make people very very > sad :D I see what you mean. I think that's inherent in the thing we're building, and what certainly helps is that we're saying the hash is meant to be stable. There's also the possibility that even if you have a string-producing builtin, that the hash-producing builtin somehow messes up the hash calculation. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/156842 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
