[llvm] r281773 - [WebAssembly] Fix function types of CFGStackify tests

[Dan Gohman via llvm-commits]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Derek Schuff via llvm-commits <
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Author: dschuff
> Date: Fri Sep 16 15:58:31 2016
> New Revision: 281773
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=281773&view=rev
> Log:
> [WebAssembly] Fix function types of CFGStackify tests
>
> Make the function's declared type match its (lack of) return type
>
> Modified:
>     llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/WebAssembly/cfg-stackify.ll
>
> Modified: llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/WebAssembly/cfg-stackify.ll
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/test/
> CodeGen/WebAssembly/cfg-stackify.ll?rev=281773&r1=
> 281772&r2=281773&view=diff
> ============================================================
> ==================
> --- llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/WebAssembly/cfg-stackify.ll (original)
> +++ llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/WebAssembly/cfg-stackify.ll Fri Sep 16
> 15:58:31 2016
> @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ entry:
>  ; OPT: i32.store $drop=, 0($0), $pop{{[0-9]+}}{{$}}
>  ; OPT: br 0{{$}}
>  ; OPT: .LBB7_2:
> -define i32 @minimal_loop(i32* %p) {
> +define void @minimal_loop(i32* %p) {
>

The previous code with a non-void return type and an infinite loop instead
of a return is valid in LLVM IR, so the backend should be able to handle
it. Was this code triggering a bug?

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160916/48e8e0c2/attachment.html>