[llvm-commits] [llvm] r67849 - /llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/int-fp-conv-0.ll

[Chris Lattner]

On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:48 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote:

>>>> =
>>>> =
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/int-fp-conv-0.ll (original)
>>>> +++ llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/int-fp-conv-0.ll Fri Mar 27
>>>> 11:17:22 2009
>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>>>> -; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc64 -debug |& not grep store
>>>> +; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc64 -debug |& not grep {=  
>>>> store}
>>> I thought that "store" instructions were never assigned to a
>>> variable...
>>
>> This test is grepping through the -debug output of llc, and the  
>> stores
>> its
>> looking for do happen to be printed with =.
>>
>> Grepping through -debug output isn't very nice in any case, but at  
>> the
>> moment there aren't any better ways to express this specific test.
>
> The issue with using -debug in a test like this is that the user might
> have compiled a release build. I don't know about llc, but opt - 
> debug is
> disabled and llc -debug might be in the future.

Right, -debug in general doesn't exist in -asserts mode.

> Perhaps it's time to consider a unit test? Is this something you could
> test through the API?


Does anyone know what this testing is attempting to test?  If not,  
just remove that RUN line.

-Chris