paulkirth marked an inline comment as done. paulkirth added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/Profile/misexpect-branch-cold.c:4 +// RUN: llvm-profdata merge %S/Inputs/misexpect-branch.proftext -o %t.profdata +// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -O2 -o - -disable-llvm-passes -emit-llvm -fprofile-instrument-use-path=%t.profdata -verify -Wmisexpect + ---------------- lebedev.ri wrote: > paulkirth wrote: > > lebedev.ri wrote: > > > Is there a test where `-Wmisexpect` isn't present, to verify that it is > > > off-by-default? > > We can add one, but is that necessary? Don't the tests for diagnostics > > cover those already? > To clarify: i'm interested in the case where the PGO data is provided but > `-Wmisexpect` is *not* specified. Actually, this is moot. That test already exists in misexpect-branch.c: line 6. Since that file actually has a mismatched use of __builtin_expect(), it's a better candidate anyway. ```// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -O2 -o - -disable-llvm-passes -emit-llvm -fprofile-instrument-use-path=%t.profdata -verify=foo``` CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
