bmahjour added a comment. > (generally: disabling the test in non-asserts builds isn't the right path, > modifying the test so it doesn't depend on asserts IR naming is the right > path)
Agreed. > Yes, probably removing the entry: check would be sufficient - give it a test > locally and see how it goes. (it does mean the "CHECK-NEXT" after that (for > the first instruction) would have to be a plain "CHECK" - so that the test > could pass both in the presence and absence of the entry label. Right. > Yeah, seems like a weird choice to me too (though has been around a long > time, so folks are pretty used to it) - might be worth bringing it up on > llvm-dev. I think we now have a flag to enable this functionality that works > even in non-asserts builds (maybe?) so maybe if we just change the default > for assert builds so it's always opt-in via a flag, then it's consistent > between asserts and non-asserts builds. Do you happen to know what that option is? Thanks! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
