efriedma added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/CodeGen/builtin-constant-p.c:2 +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown -emit-llvm -o - %s -O2 | FileCheck --check-prefix=O2 %s +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown -emit-llvm -o - %s -O0 | FileCheck --check-prefix=O0 %s ---------------- efriedma wrote: > void wrote: > > efriedma wrote: > > > Given this code doesn't check the optimization level anymore, do you > > > still need separate check prefixes for `O2` and `O0`. Or if that doesn't > > > work for everything, maybe you could share a check prefix for some of the > > > tests? (Maybe it would make sense to check IR generated using > > > `-disable-llvm-passes`.) > > The bug only triggered at `O0`, so I still want to test it without > > optimizations. Note that we do check optimization levels during code > > generation to determine if we should generate an `is.constant` intrinsic. > You can use something like "-check-prefixes=CHECK,O0" to reduce the > duplication. That doesn't pass. More specifically, I was thinking something more along the lines of using "--check-prefixes=CHECK,O2" for the first run, and "--check-prefixes=CHECK,O0" for the second run; then you can use "CHECK:" for the common lines and "O2:"/"O0:" for the lines that are different. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55616/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55616 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
