Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "minimst".
2011 Nov 20
0
[LLVMdev] How to make Polly ignore some non-affine memory accesses
...t; this is the reason of the XFAIL test).he
XFAIL it not the way to test this. You can just add another command line
to the passing test, remove the flag to enable non-affine access
functions and replace '| FileCheck' with '| not FileCheck'.
> Originally you said I had to add a minimst al test case to the patch,
> should I add some more tests now withore complex scops?
I do not see that a more complex scope would test more of the feature.
You could add a test case where the access subscript is not a valid
SCEV, but COULD_NOT_COMPUTE.
Cheers
Tobi
2011 Nov 20
2
[LLVMdev] How to make Polly ignore some non-affine memory accesses
2011/11/19 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>:
> On 11/18/2011 01:34 PM, Marcello Maggioni wrote:
>>
>> Ok , this is what I believe is the final patch that adds the
>> non-affine accept functionality to Polly, this should have no issues.
>>
>> I added three tests, two in ScopInfo (two simple tests, one expected
>> fail and one success based on the
2011 Nov 21
2
[LLVMdev] How to make Polly ignore some non-affine memory accesses
...e XFAIL test).he
>
> XFAIL it not the way to test this. You can just add another command line
> to the passing test, remove the flag to enable non-affine access functions
> and replace '| FileCheck' with '| not FileCheck'.
>
>> Originally you said I had to add a minimst al test case to the patch,
>> should I add some more tests now withore complex scops?
>
> I do not see that a more complex scope would test more of the feature. You
> could add a test case where the access subscript is not a valid
> SCEV, but COULD_NOT_COMPUTE.
>
> Cheers
&g...
2011 Nov 21
0
[LLVMdev] How to get ELF section virtual starting address from MCSymbolRefExpr?
...gt; this is the reason of the XFAIL test).he
XFAIL it not the way to test this. You can just add another command line
to the passing test, remove the flag to enable non-affine access
functions and replace '| FileCheck' with '| not FileCheck'.
> Originally you said I had to add a minimst al test case to the patch,
> should I add some more tests now withore complex scops?
I do not see that a more complex scope would test more of the feature.
You could add a test case where the access subscript is not a valid
SCEV, but COULD_NOT_COMPUTE.
Cheers
Tobi
---------------------------...