[llvm] r176777 - Don't glue users to extract_subreg when selecting the llvm.arm.ldrexd

[Lang Hames]

Hi Meador, David,

If placed in ldrstrexd, this test would be run redundantly in thumb mode,
where this bug never appeared. I have a negative gut-reaction to targeted
tests like this being run in unintended scenarios, even if it is cheaper -
it makes it less clear what the test was testing for. My feelings aren't
especially strong though - if there's some good reason for merging it (or
if you feel it's a useful IR sequence to test the generic codegen) please
feel free to merge it.

David - happy to hear we're not doing the dates-in-test-names thing any
more. I've renamed this to PR15053.ll in r176796.

- Lang.



On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Meador Inge <meadori at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 3:47 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not sure if this is universally true but in many parts of llvm & clang
> we've
> > generally moved away from putting dates in test case names like this.
> >
> > (And the other caveat of: if possible, it's nice to add a test case to an
> > existing test file/run than to add another - reducing the number of
> > processes created keeps test cycle time low)
>
> For this particular case 'test/CodeGen/ARM/ldstrexd.ll' probably makes
> sense.
>
> -- Meador
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130310/b0a798dd/attachment.html>