[llvm] [nfc][InstrProfTest]Factor out common code for value profile test (PR #72611)

[Mingming Liu via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -64,13 +64,130 @@ struct InstrProfTest : ::testing::Test {
   }
 };
 
+static const char callee1[] = "callee1";
+static const char callee2[] = "callee2";
+static const char callee3[] = "callee3";
+static const char callee4[] = "callee4";
+static const char callee5[] = "callee5";
+static const char callee6[] = "callee6";
+
+static const auto Err = [](Error E) {
+  consumeError(std::move(E));
+  FAIL();
+};
+
+typedef std::vector<MutableArrayRef<InstrProfValueData>> VDArray;
+
+// This helper function adds the value profile data to Record. The type of
+// value profiles is specified by 'ValueKind'. 'ValueDataArray' is a non-const
+// reference and the vector element is a mutable array reference. This is mainly
+// because method `InstrProfRecord::addValueData` takes a pointer and might
+// modify the pointed-to content.
+static void addValueProfData(InstrProfRecord &Record, uint32_t ValueKind,
+                             VDArray &ValueDataArray) {
+  Record.reserveSites(ValueKind, ValueDataArray.size());
+  for (long unsigned int i = 0; i < ValueDataArray.size(); i++) {
+    // The state of vector::data() is not specified when the vector is empty,
+    // and MutableArrayRef takes vector::data() when initialized with a vector.
+    Record.addValueData(ValueKind, i,
+                        ValueDataArray[i].empty() ? nullptr
+                                                  : ValueDataArray[i].data(),
+                        ValueDataArray[i].size(), nullptr);
+  }
+}
+
 struct SparseInstrProfTest : public InstrProfTest {
   void SetUp() override { Writer.setOutputSparse(true); }
 };
 
 struct MaybeSparseInstrProfTest : public InstrProfTest,
                                   public ::testing::WithParamInterface<bool> {
   void SetUp() override { Writer.setOutputSparse(GetParam()); }
+
+public:
+  // Tests that value profiles in Record has the same content as (possibly
+  // weighted and sorted) InputVDs for each value kind. ValueProfSorted is true
+  // iff the value profiles of Record are already sorted by count.
+  // InputVDs is a non-const reference since it might need a in-place sort.
+  void testValueDataArray(
+      std::vector<std::pair<uint32_t /* ValueKind */, VDArray &>> &InputVDs,
+      InstrProfRecord &Record, bool ValueProfSorted = false,
+      uint64_t ProfWeight = 1) {
+    for (auto &[ValueKind, InputVD] : InputVDs) {
+      ASSERT_EQ(InputVD.size(), Record.getNumValueSites(ValueKind));
+      for (unsigned i = 0; i < InputVD.size(); i++) {
+        ASSERT_EQ(InputVD[i].size(),
+                  Record.getNumValueDataForSite(ValueKind, i));
+
+        uint64_t WantTotalC = 0, GetTotalC = 0;
+        std::unique_ptr<InstrProfValueData[]> OutputVD =
+            Record.getValueForSite(ValueKind, i, &GetTotalC);
+
+        // If value profile elements of the same instrumented site are sorted by
+        // count in Record, sort the input value data array the same way for
+        // comparison purpose.
+        if (ValueProfSorted) {
+          llvm::stable_sort(InputVD[i], [](const InstrProfValueData &lhs,
+                                           const InstrProfValueData &rhs) {
+            return lhs.Count > rhs.Count;
+          });
+        }
+
+        // The previous ASSERT_EQ already tests the number of value data is
+        // InputVD[i].size(), so there won't be out-of-bound access.
+        for (unsigned j = 0; j < InputVD[i].size(); j++) {
+          EXPECT_EQ(InputVD[i][j].Count * ProfWeight, OutputVD[j].Count);
+          EXPECT_EQ(InputVD[i][j].Value, OutputVD[j].Value);
+          WantTotalC += InputVD[i][j].Count;
+        }
+        EXPECT_EQ(WantTotalC * ProfWeight, GetTotalC);
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+  // A helper function to test the writes and reads of indirect call value
+  // profiles. The profile writer will scale counters by `ProfWeight` when
+  // adding a record. `Endianness` specifies the endianness used by profile
+  // writer and reader when handling value profile records.
+  void testICallDataReadWrite(
+      uint64_t ProfWeight = 1,
+      llvm::endianness Endianness = llvm::endianness::little) {
+    NamedInstrProfRecord Record1("caller", 0x1234, {1, 2});
+
+    // 4 function value sites.
+    std::vector<InstrProfValueData> FuncVD0 = {
+        {uint64_t(callee1), 1}, {uint64_t(callee2), 2}, {uint64_t(callee3), 3}};
+    std::vector<InstrProfValueData> FuncVD2 = {{uint64_t(callee1), 1},
+                                               {uint64_t(callee2), 2}};
+    std::vector<InstrProfValueData> FuncVD3 = {{uint64_t(callee1), 1}};
+    VDArray FuncVD = {FuncVD0, {}, FuncVD2, FuncVD3};
+    addValueProfData(Record1, IPVK_IndirectCallTarget, FuncVD);
+
+    if (ProfWeight == 1U) {
+      Writer.addRecord(std::move(Record1), Err);
----------------
minglotus-6 wrote:

yep! This `if-else` is for the test coverage of the thin-wrapper. I could do this in the further parameterized version later.

Github doesn't support re-open of a merged PR so I'll create new PRs for the test.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72611