[llvm] r207969 - Fix test from r207966 and add a comment there.

[Juergen Ributzka]

HI Michael,

I would either move this test to the X86 CodeGen test folder or add an additional “opt” test line that checks for the expected/not expected LLVM IR.

Cheers,
Juergen

On May 5, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Michael Zolotukhin <mzolotukhin at apple.com> wrote:

> Author: mzolotukhin
> Date: Mon May  5 09:46:53 2014
> New Revision: 207969
> 
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=207969&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix test from r207966 and add a comment there.
> 
> Modified:
>    llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/ConstantHoisting/X86/large-immediate-2.ll
> 
> Modified: llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/ConstantHoisting/X86/large-immediate-2.ll
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/ConstantHoisting/X86/large-immediate-2.ll?rev=207969&r1=207968&r2=207969&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/ConstantHoisting/X86/large-immediate-2.ll (original)
> +++ llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/ConstantHoisting/X86/large-immediate-2.ll Mon May  5 09:46:53 2014
> @@ -1,8 +1,10 @@
> ; RUN: llc < %s -O3 -march=x86-64 |FileCheck %s
> define i64 @foo(i1 %z, i192* %p, i192* %q)
> {
> -; CHECK: movq    16(%rsi), %rax
> -; CHECK-NEXT: retq
> +; If const 128 is hoisted to a variable, then in basic block L_val2 we would
> +; have %lshr2 = lshr i192 %data2, %const, and the definition of %const would
> +; be in another basic block. As a result, a very inefficient code might be
> +; produced. Here we check that this doesn't occur.
> entry:
>   %data1 = load i192* %p, align 8
>   %lshr1 = lshr i192 %data1, 128
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits