================ @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +; Tests if the __llvm_gcov_ctr section contains a .ref pseudo-op +; referring to the __llvm_covinit section. +; RUN: llc < %s | FileCheck --check-prefixes=CHECK,CHECK-RW %s +; RUN: llc -mxcoff-roptr < %s | FileCheck --check-prefixes=CHECK,CHECK-RO %s + +target datalayout = "E-m:a-p:32:32-Fi32-i64:64-n32" +target triple = "powerpc-ibm-aix" + +; CHECK-RW: .csect __llvm_covinit[RW],3 +; CHECK-RO: .csect __llvm_covinit[RO],3 +; CHECK: .vbyte 4, __llvm_gcov_writeout[DS] +; CHECK-NEXT: .vbyte 4, __llvm_gcov_reset[DS] ---------------- hubert-reinterpretcast wrote:
> Could you help me understand why this is the case? The intention of the test > is to make sure that the `__llvm_covinit` csect has the correct storage > mapping class and contents. That's why the test includes the `csect` > directive. I meant it is important that we guard against active-csect changing directives in the middle. Meaning that my suggestion was to avoid skipping the two lines in the middle. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108570 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
