Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "access_group_out".
Did you mean:
access_group_outer
2020 Jul 01
2
[RFC] Compiled regression tests.
...it, the actual line that changed is textually the same and FileCheck would
> need to backtrack deep into the following lines for alternative placeholder
> substitutions. It would look like
>
> CHECK-SAME-DAG: ![[ACCESS_GROUP_INNER:[0-9]+]]
> CHECK-SAME-DAG: ,
> CHECK-SAME-DAG: ![[ACCESS_GROUP_OUTER:[0-9]+]]
Would this not work?
CHECK-SAME: ![[ACCESS_GROUP_INNER:[0-9]+]]
CHECK-SAME: ![[ACCESS_GROUP_OUTER:[0-9]+]]
I don't think CHECK-SAME is sensitive to order within the line. This
works for me in my metadata tests but maybe I've just been lucky.
> IMHO having a tool that allo...
2020 Jun 24
6
[RFC] Compiled regression tests.
Am Mi., 24. Juni 2020 um 10:12 Uhr schrieb David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>:
> > As mentioned in the Differential, generating the tests automatically
> > will lose information about what actually is intended to be tested,
>
> Agreed - and I didn't mean to suggest tests should be automatically
> generated. I work pretty hard in code reviews to encourage tests to
2020 Jul 01
5
[RFC] Compiled regression tests.
....200000e+01, {{.*}} !llvm.access.group ![[ACCESS_GROUP_LIST_3:[0-9]+]]
69 ; CHECK: br label %for.cond.i, !llvm.loop ![[LOOP_INNER:[0-9]+]]
70 ; CHECK: br label %for.cond, !llvm.loop ![[LOOP_OUTER:[0-9]+]]
71
72 ; CHECK: ![[ACCESS_GROUP_LIST_3]] = !{![[ACCESS_GROUP_INNER:[0-9]+]], ![[ACCESS_GROUP_OUTER:[0-9]+]]}
73 ; CHECK: ![[ACCESS_GROUP_INNER]] = distinct !{}
74 ; CHECK: ![[ACCESS_GROUP_OUTER]] = distinct !{}
75 ; CHECK: ![[LOOP_INNER]] = distinct !{![[LOOP_INNER]], ![[ACCESSES_INNER:[0-9]+]]}
76 ; CHECK: ![[ACCESSES_INNER]] = !{!"llvm.loop.parallel_accesses", ![[AC...
2020 Jul 01
6
[RFC] Compiled regression tests.
....group
> ![[ACCESS_GROUP_LIST_3:[0-9]+]]
> 69 ; CHECK: br label %for.cond.i, !llvm.loop ![[LOOP_INNER:[0-9]+]]
> 70 ; CHECK: br label %for.cond, !llvm.loop ![[LOOP_OUTER:[0-9]+]]
> 71
> 72 ; CHECK: ![[ACCESS_GROUP_LIST_3]] =
> !{![[ACCESS_GROUP_INNER:[0-9]+]], ![[ACCESS_GROUP_OUTER:[0-9]+]]}
> 73 ; CHECK: ![[ACCESS_GROUP_INNER]] = distinct !{}
> 74 ; CHECK: ![[ACCESS_GROUP_OUTER]] = distinct !{}
> 75 ; CHECK: ![[LOOP_INNER]] = distinct !{![[LOOP_INNER]],
> ![[ACCESSES_INNER:[0-9]+]]}
> 76 ; CHECK: ![[ACCESSES_INNER]] =
> !{!"llvm.loo...
2020 Jul 06
2
[RFC] Compiled regression tests.
Michael Kruse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
>> Would this not work?
>>
>> CHECK-SAME: ![[ACCESS_GROUP_INNER:[0-9]+]]
>> CHECK-SAME: ![[ACCESS_GROUP_OUTER:[0-9]+]]
>>
>> I don't think CHECK-SAME is sensitive to order within the line. This
>> works for me in my metadata tests but maybe I've just been lucky.
>
> AFAIU this will assume ACCESS_GROUP_INNER to appear before
> ACCESS_GROUP_OUTER since CHECK-SAME will co...