[PATCH] D30468: Simplify the CFG after loop pass cleanup.

[Filipe Cabecinhas via llvm-commits]

I know, and am open to suggestions.
I have an idea for a less fragile test, but it will still have the same
problem:

We're doing a check for the absence of something. And that something is
hard to match.

Thank you,
 Filipe

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 at 22:27, Mehdi AMINI via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> mehdi_amini added inline comments.
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: test/Other/pr32085.ll:8
> +
> +; CHECK-NOT: .exit.loopexit
> +
> ----------------
> This seems like an incredibly fragile test to me: relying on the absence
> of a label name after running O1/O2/O3 doesn't seem robust enough to me.
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D30468
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20170321/00881eff/attachment.html>