[PATCH] D48264: [MCA][NFC] Add generic XOP resource tests

[Simon Pilgrim via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

RKSimon added inline comments.


================
Comment at: test/tools/llvm-mca/X86/Generic/resources-xop.s:29
+vpcmov %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm2, %xmm4
+vpcmov %xmm0, (%rax), %xmm2, %xmm4
+
----------------
RKSimon wrote:
> Don't duplicate, just put all the memory folds together:
> ```
> vpcmov %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm2, %xmm4
> vpcmov (%rax), %xmm1, %xmm2, %xmm4
> vpcmov  %xmm0, (%rax),%xmm2, %xmm4
> ```
Sorry, I meant it like this:
```
vpcmov %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm2, %xmm4
vpcmov (%rax), %xmm1, %xmm2, %xmm4
vpcmov  %xmm0, (%rax),%xmm2, %xmm4

vpcmov %ymm0, %ymm1, %ymm2, %ymm4
vpcmov (%rax), %ymm1, %ymm2, %ymm4
vpcmov  %ymm0, (%rax),%ymm2, %ymm4
```
That way more similar instruction are next to one another and any diffs (AGU usage, etc.) are more obvious.


================
Comment at: test/tools/llvm-mca/X86/Generic/resources-xop.s:385
+
+# FIXME: i'm not certain that is what the docs meant re %xmm8
+vprotb %xmm8, %xmm0, %xmm3
----------------
I don't understand this comment?


================
Comment at: test/tools/llvm-mca/X86/Generic/resources-xop.s:393
+vprotb $-9, %xmm0, %xmm3
+vprotb $-9, (%rax), %xmm3
+
----------------
Is it useful to test rotl/rotr here? Isn't this more of a MC test?


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D48264