hans added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/lib/CodeGen/TargetPassConfig.cpp:1096 + if (TM->Options.JMCInstrument) + addPass(createJMCInstrumenterPass()); addCodeGenPrepare(); ---------------- ychen wrote: > hans wrote: > > could this be moved into addIRPasses()? > Yes, it could. `CFGuardCheckPass` is there for targets with COFF. I didn't > put it there because I plan to make it work with ELF in the next step, > putting it here is convenient. I don't feel strongly though. I think it would be better to move it to addIRPasses(). ================ Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/jmc-instrument.ll:2 +; Check that the flag symbol is not full-qualified. +; RUN: llc < %s -enable-jmc-instrument | FileCheck %s + ---------------- ychen wrote: > hans wrote: > > hans wrote: > > > Since it's an IR pass, I think we don't need to have an llc test at all. > > I still think it's unusual to have an llc test for an IR pass. Are there > > any other examples where we do something similar? > yes, it is pretty rare. I wanted to test the `CodeViewDebug.cpp` change, > however, the code path only triggers when the JMC pass is run. Using `llc` > came to mind. I'm open to any alternative. Oh, I see. But does the test check the right thing, then? I only see CHECKs for instructions, not debug info. And isn't it enough to use IR with a global variable in the .msvcjmc section as input? I think the tighter the test, the better. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D118428/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D118428 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
