[llvm-branch-commits] [clang] [KeyInstr][Clang] Switch stmt atom (PR #134643)

[Jeremy Morse via llvm-branch-commits]

================
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -gkey-instructions -x c++ -std=c++17 %s -debug-info-kind=line-tables-only -emit-llvm -o - \
+// RUN: | FileCheck %s --implicit-check-not atomGroup --implicit-check-not atomRank --check-prefixes=CHECK,CHECK-CXX
+
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -gkey-instructions -x c %s -debug-info-kind=line-tables-only -emit-llvm -o - \
+// RUN: | FileCheck %s --implicit-check-not atomGroup --implicit-check-not atomRank
+
+int g;
+void a(int A, int B) {
+// CHECK: entry:
+// The load gets associated with the branch rather than the store.
+// FIXME: Is that the best thing to do?
+// CHECK: %0 = load i32, ptr %A.addr{{.*}}, !dbg [[G2R2:!.*]]
+// CHECK: store i32 %0, ptr @g{{.*}}, !dbg [[G1R1:!.*]]
+// CHECK: switch i32 %0, label %{{.*}} [
+// CHECK:   i32 0, label %sw.bb
+// CHECK:   i32 1, label %sw.bb1
+// CHECK: ], !dbg [[G2R1:!.*]]
+    switch ((g = A)) {
+    case 0: break;
+    case 1: {
+// CHECK: sw.bb1:
+// CHECK: %1 = load i32, ptr %B.addr{{.*}}, !dbg [[G3R2:!.*]]
+// CHECK: switch i32 %1, label %{{.*}} [
+// CHECK:   i32 0, label %sw.bb2
+// CHECK: ], !dbg [[G3R1:!.*]]
+    switch ((B)) {
+        case 0: {
+// Test that assignments in constant-folded switches don't go missing.
+// CHECK-CXX: sw.bb2:
+// CHECK-CXX: store i32 1, ptr %C{{.*}}, !dbg [[G4R1:!.*]]
----------------
jmorse wrote:

Shouldn't this be testing for the switch getting a distinct group number too? For completeness if nothing else.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134643