[PATCH] D103615: [Clang] Add option to handle behaviour of vector bool/vector pixel.

[David Blaikie via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

dblaikie added a comment.

In D103615#2847965 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615#2847965>, @stefanp wrote:

> In D103615#2847650 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615#2847650>, @dblaikie wrote:
>
>> In D103615#2847118 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615#2847118>, @bmahjour wrote:
>>
>>> In D103615#2847047 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615#2847047>, @stefanp wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry I missed the asserts requirement.
>>>> I will recommit this patch after I add `REQUIRES: asserts`.
>>>
>>> Instead of disabling the tests for non-assert builds, can we just remove the `entry:` checks at the beginning of each function? The rest of the IR checks should pass since they use a regexp so they should match for either named or unnamed instructions.
>>
>> (generally: disabling the test in non-asserts builds isn't the right path, modifying the test so it doesn't depend on asserts IR naming is the right path)
>>
>> Yes, probably removing the `entry:` check would be sufficient - give it a test locally and see how it goes. (it does mean the "CHECK-NEXT" after that (for the first instruction) would have to be a plain "CHECK" - so that the test could pass both in the presence and absence of the entry label.
>
> I've removed all of the `entry:` checks and changed for next line to `CHECK:` and that seems to be working with assertions off. I will recommit the patch like that if this is preferred.

Sounds alright to me


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615