maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/llvm/test/Transforms/RewriteStatepointsForGC/base-pointers-5.ll

29 lines
1.1 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

[RS4GC] Clamp UseDeoptBundles to true and update tests The full diff for the test directory may be hard to read because of the filename clash; so here's all that happened as far as the tests are concerned: ``` cd test/Transforms/RewriteStatepointsForGC git rm *ll git mv deopt-bundles/* ./ rmdir deopt-bundles find . -name '*.ll' | xargs gsed -i 's/-rs4gc-use-deopt-bundles //g' ``` llvm-svn: 259129
2016-01-29 08:28:57 +08:00
; RUN: opt < %s -rewrite-statepoints-for-gc -spp-print-base-pointers -S 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Add tests for the base pointer identification algorithm These tests cover the 'base object' identification and rewritting portion of RewriteStatepointsForGC. These aren't completely exhaustive, but they've proven to be reasonable effective over time at finding regressions. In the process of porting these tests over, I found my first "cleanup per llvm code style standards" bug. We were relying on the order of iteration when testing the base pointers found for a derived pointer. When we switched from std::set to DenseSet, this stopped being a safe assumption. I'm suspecting I'm going to find more of those. In particular, I'm now really wondering about the main iteration loop for this algorithm. I need to go take a closer look at the assumptions there. I'm not really happy with the fact these are testing what is essentially debug output (i.e. enabled via command line flags). Suggestions for how to structure this better are very welcome. llvm-svn: 230818
2015-02-28 08:20:48 +08:00
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Adjust naming scheme to be more stable The names for instructions inserted were previous dependent on iteration order. By deriving the names from the original instructions, we can avoid instability in tests without resorting to ordered traversals. It also makes the IR mildly easier to read at large scale. llvm-svn: 243140
2015-07-25 03:01:39 +08:00
; CHECK: derived %merged_value base %merged_value.base
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Add tests for the base pointer identification algorithm These tests cover the 'base object' identification and rewritting portion of RewriteStatepointsForGC. These aren't completely exhaustive, but they've proven to be reasonable effective over time at finding regressions. In the process of porting these tests over, I found my first "cleanup per llvm code style standards" bug. We were relying on the order of iteration when testing the base pointers found for a derived pointer. When we switched from std::set to DenseSet, this stopped being a safe assumption. I'm suspecting I'm going to find more of those. In particular, I'm now really wondering about the main iteration loop for this algorithm. I need to go take a closer look at the assumptions there. I'm not really happy with the fact these are testing what is essentially debug output (i.e. enabled via command line flags). Suggestions for how to structure this better are very welcome. llvm-svn: 230818
2015-02-28 08:20:48 +08:00
declare void @foo()
define i64 addrspace(1)* @test(i64 addrspace(1)* %base_obj_x, i64 addrspace(1)* %base_obj_y, i1 %runtime_condition) gc "statepoint-example" {
entry:
br i1 %runtime_condition, label %here, label %there
[RS4GC] Clamp UseDeoptBundles to true and update tests The full diff for the test directory may be hard to read because of the filename clash; so here's all that happened as far as the tests are concerned: ``` cd test/Transforms/RewriteStatepointsForGC git rm *ll git mv deopt-bundles/* ./ rmdir deopt-bundles find . -name '*.ll' | xargs gsed -i 's/-rs4gc-use-deopt-bundles //g' ``` llvm-svn: 259129
2016-01-29 08:28:57 +08:00
here: ; preds = %entry
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Add tests for the base pointer identification algorithm These tests cover the 'base object' identification and rewritting portion of RewriteStatepointsForGC. These aren't completely exhaustive, but they've proven to be reasonable effective over time at finding regressions. In the process of porting these tests over, I found my first "cleanup per llvm code style standards" bug. We were relying on the order of iteration when testing the base pointers found for a derived pointer. When we switched from std::set to DenseSet, this stopped being a safe assumption. I'm suspecting I'm going to find more of those. In particular, I'm now really wondering about the main iteration loop for this algorithm. I need to go take a closer look at the assumptions there. I'm not really happy with the fact these are testing what is essentially debug output (i.e. enabled via command line flags). Suggestions for how to structure this better are very welcome. llvm-svn: 230818
2015-02-28 08:20:48 +08:00
br label %bump
[RS4GC] Clamp UseDeoptBundles to true and update tests The full diff for the test directory may be hard to read because of the filename clash; so here's all that happened as far as the tests are concerned: ``` cd test/Transforms/RewriteStatepointsForGC git rm *ll git mv deopt-bundles/* ./ rmdir deopt-bundles find . -name '*.ll' | xargs gsed -i 's/-rs4gc-use-deopt-bundles //g' ``` llvm-svn: 259129
2016-01-29 08:28:57 +08:00
bump: ; preds = %here
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Add tests for the base pointer identification algorithm These tests cover the 'base object' identification and rewritting portion of RewriteStatepointsForGC. These aren't completely exhaustive, but they've proven to be reasonable effective over time at finding regressions. In the process of porting these tests over, I found my first "cleanup per llvm code style standards" bug. We were relying on the order of iteration when testing the base pointers found for a derived pointer. When we switched from std::set to DenseSet, this stopped being a safe assumption. I'm suspecting I'm going to find more of those. In particular, I'm now really wondering about the main iteration loop for this algorithm. I need to go take a closer look at the assumptions there. I'm not really happy with the fact these are testing what is essentially debug output (i.e. enabled via command line flags). Suggestions for how to structure this better are very welcome. llvm-svn: 230818
2015-02-28 08:20:48 +08:00
br label %merge
[RS4GC] Clamp UseDeoptBundles to true and update tests The full diff for the test directory may be hard to read because of the filename clash; so here's all that happened as far as the tests are concerned: ``` cd test/Transforms/RewriteStatepointsForGC git rm *ll git mv deopt-bundles/* ./ rmdir deopt-bundles find . -name '*.ll' | xargs gsed -i 's/-rs4gc-use-deopt-bundles //g' ``` llvm-svn: 259129
2016-01-29 08:28:57 +08:00
there: ; preds = %entry
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Add tests for the base pointer identification algorithm These tests cover the 'base object' identification and rewritting portion of RewriteStatepointsForGC. These aren't completely exhaustive, but they've proven to be reasonable effective over time at finding regressions. In the process of porting these tests over, I found my first "cleanup per llvm code style standards" bug. We were relying on the order of iteration when testing the base pointers found for a derived pointer. When we switched from std::set to DenseSet, this stopped being a safe assumption. I'm suspecting I'm going to find more of those. In particular, I'm now really wondering about the main iteration loop for this algorithm. I need to go take a closer look at the assumptions there. I'm not really happy with the fact these are testing what is essentially debug output (i.e. enabled via command line flags). Suggestions for how to structure this better are very welcome. llvm-svn: 230818
2015-02-28 08:20:48 +08:00
%y = getelementptr i64, i64 addrspace(1)* %base_obj_y, i32 1
br label %merge
[RS4GC] Clamp UseDeoptBundles to true and update tests The full diff for the test directory may be hard to read because of the filename clash; so here's all that happened as far as the tests are concerned: ``` cd test/Transforms/RewriteStatepointsForGC git rm *ll git mv deopt-bundles/* ./ rmdir deopt-bundles find . -name '*.ll' | xargs gsed -i 's/-rs4gc-use-deopt-bundles //g' ``` llvm-svn: 259129
2016-01-29 08:28:57 +08:00
merge: ; preds = %there, %bump
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Add tests for the base pointer identification algorithm These tests cover the 'base object' identification and rewritting portion of RewriteStatepointsForGC. These aren't completely exhaustive, but they've proven to be reasonable effective over time at finding regressions. In the process of porting these tests over, I found my first "cleanup per llvm code style standards" bug. We were relying on the order of iteration when testing the base pointers found for a derived pointer. When we switched from std::set to DenseSet, this stopped being a safe assumption. I'm suspecting I'm going to find more of those. In particular, I'm now really wondering about the main iteration loop for this algorithm. I need to go take a closer look at the assumptions there. I'm not really happy with the fact these are testing what is essentially debug output (i.e. enabled via command line flags). Suggestions for how to structure this better are very welcome. llvm-svn: 230818
2015-02-28 08:20:48 +08:00
; CHECK: merge:
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Adjust naming scheme to be more stable The names for instructions inserted were previous dependent on iteration order. By deriving the names from the original instructions, we can avoid instability in tests without resorting to ordered traversals. It also makes the IR mildly easier to read at large scale. llvm-svn: 243140
2015-07-25 03:01:39 +08:00
; CHECK: %merged_value.base = phi i64 addrspace(1)* [ %base_obj_x, %bump ], [ %base_obj_y, %there ]
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Add tests for the base pointer identification algorithm These tests cover the 'base object' identification and rewritting portion of RewriteStatepointsForGC. These aren't completely exhaustive, but they've proven to be reasonable effective over time at finding regressions. In the process of porting these tests over, I found my first "cleanup per llvm code style standards" bug. We were relying on the order of iteration when testing the base pointers found for a derived pointer. When we switched from std::set to DenseSet, this stopped being a safe assumption. I'm suspecting I'm going to find more of those. In particular, I'm now really wondering about the main iteration loop for this algorithm. I need to go take a closer look at the assumptions there. I'm not really happy with the fact these are testing what is essentially debug output (i.e. enabled via command line flags). Suggestions for how to structure this better are very welcome. llvm-svn: 230818
2015-02-28 08:20:48 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: %merged_value = phi i64 addrspace(1)* [ %base_obj_x, %bump ], [ %y, %there ]
%merged_value = phi i64 addrspace(1)* [ %base_obj_x, %bump ], [ %y, %there ]
[RS4GC] Clamp UseDeoptBundles to true and update tests The full diff for the test directory may be hard to read because of the filename clash; so here's all that happened as far as the tests are concerned: ``` cd test/Transforms/RewriteStatepointsForGC git rm *ll git mv deopt-bundles/* ./ rmdir deopt-bundles find . -name '*.ll' | xargs gsed -i 's/-rs4gc-use-deopt-bundles //g' ``` llvm-svn: 259129
2016-01-29 08:28:57 +08:00
call void @foo() [ "deopt"(i32 0, i32 -1, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0) ]
[RewriteStatepointsForGC] Add tests for the base pointer identification algorithm These tests cover the 'base object' identification and rewritting portion of RewriteStatepointsForGC. These aren't completely exhaustive, but they've proven to be reasonable effective over time at finding regressions. In the process of porting these tests over, I found my first "cleanup per llvm code style standards" bug. We were relying on the order of iteration when testing the base pointers found for a derived pointer. When we switched from std::set to DenseSet, this stopped being a safe assumption. I'm suspecting I'm going to find more of those. In particular, I'm now really wondering about the main iteration loop for this algorithm. I need to go take a closer look at the assumptions there. I'm not really happy with the fact these are testing what is essentially debug output (i.e. enabled via command line flags). Suggestions for how to structure this better are very welcome. llvm-svn: 230818
2015-02-28 08:20:48 +08:00
ret i64 addrspace(1)* %merged_value
}