[llvm-commits] [llvm] r67849 - /llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/int-fp-conv-0.ll

[Nick Lewycky]

Dan Gohman wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2009, at 3:07 AM, Bill Wendling wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 27, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Dan Gohman wrote:
>>
>>> Author: djg
>>> Date: Fri Mar 27 11:17:22 2009
>>> New Revision: 67849
>>>
>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=67849&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Fix this test so that it doesn't spuriously fail due to some
>>> unrelated debugging output happening to contain the string "store".
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>>   llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/int-fp-conv-0.ll
>>>
>>> Modified: llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/int-fp-conv-0.ll
>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/int-fp-conv-0.ll?rev=67849&r1=67848&r2=67849&view=diff
>>>
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =
>>> =====================================================================
>>> --- llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/int-fp-conv-0.ll (original)
>>> +++ llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/int-fp-conv-0.ll Fri Mar 27
>>> 11:17:22 2009
>>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>>> -; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc64 -debug |& not grep store
>>> +; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=ppc64 -debug |& not grep {= store}
>> I thought that "store" instructions were never assigned to a  
>> variable...
> 
> This test is grepping through the -debug output of llc, and the stores  
> its
> looking for do happen to be printed with =.
> 
> Grepping through -debug output isn't very nice in any case, but at the
> moment there aren't any better ways to express this specific test.

The issue with using -debug in a test like this is that the user might 
have compiled a release build. I don't know about llc, but opt -debug is 
disabled and llc -debug might be in the future.

Perhaps it's time to consider a unit test? Is this something you could 
test through the API?

Nick