[PATCH] FileCheck-ize test and make sure more things don't happen.

[David Blaikie]

SGTM

(heh, I don't even remember "llvm.dbg.func.start" - maybe that's from
before my time... yep, 2009)

Maybe it'd be nice to make sure that this test doesn't bitrot the same way
again - have a canary of some kind? (eg: a non-nodebug function and
positively CHECK for the same features - so if those checks ever fail, we
know we've accidentally made the negative tests for dbg/DISubprogram
invalid)

Seems weird - not sure if it's a good idea. Just a thought.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Paul Robinson <
Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:

> Hi dblaikie, echristo,
>
> Attirbute 'nodebug' means no llvm.dbg.* intrinsics, no !dbg annotations,
> and no DISubprogram for the function.
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D10747
>
> Files:
>   test/CodeGen/attr-nodebug.c
>
> Index: test/CodeGen/attr-nodebug.c
> ===================================================================
> --- test/CodeGen/attr-nodebug.c
> +++ test/CodeGen/attr-nodebug.c
> @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
> -// RUN: %clang_cc1 -g -emit-llvm -o %t %s
> -// RUN: not grep 'call void @llvm.dbg.func.start' %t
> +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -g -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s
>
>  void t1() __attribute__((nodebug));
>
> @@ -10,3 +9,10 @@
>    a++;
>  }
>
> +// IR should have no llvm.dbg.* calls, or !dbg annotations.
> +// CHECK-LABEL: @t1
> +// CHECK-NOT:   dbg
> +// CHECK:       }
> +
> +// And no function description for debug info.
> +// CHECK-NOT: DISubprogram
>
> EMAIL PREFERENCES
>   http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150625/376bb515/attachment.html>