[PATCH] D72454: [AIX] Enable frame pointer for AIX and add related test suite

[Xiangling Liao via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

Xiangling_L marked 8 inline comments as done.
Xiangling_L added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/Frames-alloca.ll:3
+; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=PPC64-LINUX
+; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu -frame-pointer=all | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=PPC32-LINUX
+; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu -frame-pointer=all | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=PPC64-LINUX
----------------
cebowleratibm wrote:
> Why did you drop the -NOFP from the prefix?  Is the output expected to be the same between default and -frame-pointer=all?
1. Because `-frame-pointer=all` means `disable frame pointer optimization elimination`.  I kinda feel `NOFP` here is misleading. And also it's not consistent with other LINUX frame pointer tests naming convention.

2. And yes, the output is expected to be same.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/Frames-alloca.ll:5
+; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu -frame-pointer=all | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=PPC64-LINUX
+; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=PPC32-LINUX
+
----------------
cebowleratibm wrote:
> isn't this redudant to line 1?
This is to check if the default and `-frame-pointer=all` behave the same, the answer of which is they should be in this case.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/aix64-frames-stack-floor.ll:1
+; RUN: llc -verify-machineinstrs < %s -mcpu=pwr4 -mattr=-altivec \
+; RUN: -mtriple=powerpc64-ibm-aix-xcoff | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=PPC64-NOFP
----------------
cebowleratibm wrote:
> Why isn't there a PPC32 variant of this test?
They are in another file named `aix32-frames-stack-floor.ll`.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D72454/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D72454