<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Dehao Chen via Phabricator <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:reviews@reviews.llvm.org" target="_blank">reviews@reviews.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">danielcdh added a comment.<br>
<span class=""><br>
In <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D34720#792993" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/<wbr>D34720#792993</a>, @davidxl wrote:<br>
<br>
> One or more integration test (using clang driver with new PM) is probably needed.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>The test is added in the clang side: <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D34721" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/<wbr>D34721</a><br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Is that test good enough to catch most of the expected bahavior with the pipeline? (e.g,  hot callsite from hot inline instance chain)? This will help prevent accidental pipeline change that affects autoFDO.  Probably in a different patch.</div><div><br></div><div>David </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D34720" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/<wbr>D34720</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>