Currently we have a number of tests that fail with -verify-machineinstrs.
To detect this cases earlier we add the option to the testcases with the
exception of tests that will currently fail with this option. PR 27456 keeps
track of this failures.
No code review, as discussed with Hal Finkel.
llvm-svn: 277624
Essentially the same as the GEP change in r230786.
A similar migration script can be used to update test cases, though a few more
test case improvements/changes were required this time around: (r229269-r229278)
import fileinput
import sys
import re
pat = re.compile(r"((?:=|:|^)\s*load (?:atomic )?(?:volatile )?(.*?))(| addrspace\(\d+\) *)\*($| *(?:%|@|null|undef|blockaddress|getelementptr|addrspacecast|bitcast|inttoptr|\[\[[a-zA-Z]|\{\{).*$)")
for line in sys.stdin:
sys.stdout.write(re.sub(pat, r"\1, \2\3*\4", line))
Reviewers: rafael, dexonsmith, grosser
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7649
llvm-svn: 230794
This is a follow-up to the activity in the bug at
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18663 . The underlying issue has
to do with how the KILL pseudo-instruction is handled. I defer to
Hal/Jakob/Uli for additional details and background.
This will disable the (bad?) assert, add an associated fixme comment,
and add a pair of tests.
The code change and the pr18663-2.ll test are copied from the referenced
bug. That test does not immediately fail in my environment, but I have
added the pr18663.ll test which does.
(Comment from Hal)
to provide everyone else with some context, this assert was not bad when
it was written. At that time, we only generated KILL pseudo instructions
around subregister copies. This logic, unfortunately, had its own problems.
In r199797, the relevant logic in MachineCopyPropagation was replaced to
generate KILLs for other kinds of copies too. This change in semantics broke
this now-problematic assumption in AggressiveAntiDepBreaker. The
AggressiveAntiDepBreaker really needs a proper cleanup to deal with the
change, but removing the assert (which just allows the function to return
false) is a safe conservative behavior, and should do for the time being.
llvm-svn: 214429
