[PATCH] D148216: Add support for annotations in UpdateTestChecks (NFC)

[Nikita Popov via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

nikic added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/test/utils/update_cc_test_checks/Inputs/annotations.c.expected:12
+// CHECK-NEXT:    [[TMP1:%.*]] = load i32, ptr [[X]], align 4
+// CHECK-NEXT:    ret i32 [[TMP1]]
+//
----------------
hnrklssn wrote:
> hnrklssn wrote:
> > nikic wrote:
> > > hnrklssn wrote:
> > > > delcypher wrote:
> > > > > @hnrklssn I just noticed we don't have a `CHECK` for what `META2` actually refers to. Should we?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not something that has to be fixed in this patch, more just an observation.
> > > > Indeed this is true for metadata in general, presumably because the RHS often refer to things like other metadata identifiers. In the case of annotations they seem to always refer to simple strings however, so it would be feasible to do a straight match without having to do recursive matching or complex regexes to determine which part of the metadata to match against.
> > > > 
> > > > In many cases with metadata attached to IR nodes, multiple nodes refer to the same metadata node, so at least you verify that they still are consistent. But I agree that verifying the content would be a great future addition.
> > > You need to pass `--check-globals` to check the actual metadata.
> > When I add that to this test case it adds
> > 
> > ```
> > //.
> > // CHECK: attributes #0 = { noinline nounwind optnone "min-legal-vector-width"="0" "no-trapping-math"="true" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-features"="+cx8,+mmx,+sse,+sse2,+x87" }
> > //.
> > // CHECK: !0 = !{i32 1, !"wchar_size", i32 4}
> > // CHECK: !1 = !{!"clang version 17.0.0 (git at github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git 684914f47cf59e9ab6d8b0f73c58ca6272ea28d4)"}
> > // CHECK: !2 = !{!"auto-init"}
> > //.
> > ```
> > 
> > So it seems to just be doing a simple literal matching on all metadata, regardless of whether we captured that metadata in any filecheck variable. And it still doesn't use the META2 variable to match the definition. Am I missing something? If we use the literal metadata names instead of variable matching for the definitions, there isn't much point in doing variable matching for the metadata uses either, since the test still very much relies on the metadata numbering being stable.
> @nikic Do you have more information to add about how metadata definition matchers can be generated without hardcoding everything (which is kind of the opposite of what this patch is trying to do), or in general if you're happy with the state of the PR?
This works fine with update_test_checks, so it must be some bug in update_cc_test_checks in particular. From a quick look, I suspect it's because https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/3d05ab6d3e24e76ff53b8d7d623c436b4be5b809/llvm/utils/update_cc_test_checks.py#L447 hardcodes a True value, while update_test_checks makes this dependent on `--preserve-names`, which is disabled by default there.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D148216/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D148216