tests: adapt array-cmp for llvm/llvm-project@f7b65011de51 #144749
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Collaborator
|
rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum. Use |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
The referenced commit adds a new llvm.loop.estimated_trip_count metadata entry, which shows up in this test. It was being erroneously captured by a too-broad regular expression, which this fixes such that the test passes both before and after the upstream change.
durin42
force-pushed
the
llvm-22-loop-thing
branch
from
8f0fee6 to
3ec23cb
Compare
scottmcm
reviewed
Jul 31, 2025
| // CHECK-NOT: cmp | ||
| // CHECK: %[[EQ01:.+]] = icmp eq i16 %[[A01]], %[[B01]] | ||
| // CHECK-NEXT: br i1 %[[EQ01]], label %[[L10:.+]], label %[[EXIT_U:.+]] | ||
| // CHECK-NEXT: br i1 %[[EQ01]], label %[[L10:.+]], label %[[EXIT_U:.+]]{{(, !llvm.loop ![0-9+])?}} |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does the test care about the attribute? Would it be fine if we just did something simpler like
Suggested change
| // CHECK-NEXT: br i1 %[[EQ01]], label %[[L10:.+]], label %[[EXIT_U:.+]]{{(, !llvm.loop ![0-9+])?}} | |
| // CHECK-NEXT: br i1 %[[EQ01]], label %[[L10:.+]], label %[[EXIT_U:.+]]{{,|$}} |
or maybe it'd be sufficient to just
Suggested change
| // CHECK-NEXT: br i1 %[[EQ01]], label %[[L10:.+]], label %[[EXIT_U:.+]]{{(, !llvm.loop ![0-9+])?}} | |
| // CHECK-NEXT: br i1 %[[EQ01]], label %[[L10:.+]], label %[[EXIT_U:.+]]{{,?}} |
Though I'm not sure exactly how FileCheck handles something like that.
Contributor
|
(Note that the change has been reverted for now.) |
Member
|
@rustbot author |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
Collaborator
|
Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use |
Contributor
|
Can this be closed? Don't think it's relevant anymore. |
Contributor
Author
|
Yeah, I was hanging on to it because I figured the change would come back, but presumably it won't at this point |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-author
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The referenced commit adds a new llvm.loop.estimated_trip_count metadata entry, which shows up in this test. It was being erroneously captured by a too-broad regular expression, which this fixes such that the test passes both before and after the upstream change.
@rustbot label llvm-main