[PATCH] D16095: [Polly] Prepare unit tests for update to ISL 0.16 (WIP)

[Tobias Grosser via llvm-commits]

grosser added a comment.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16095#324609, @Meinersbur wrote:

> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16095#324467, @grosser wrote:
>
> > the patch looks to me very sensible. I would be generally comfortable to commit something like this. What are the remaining changes you had in mind?
>




> Removing additional lines in reduction_simple_iv_debug_wrapped_dependences.ll and sequential_loops.ll, re-add possibly interesting CHECK-NOT lines that are not covered by CHECK-NEXTs.


Cool.

> > > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > Regarding the script, I think it would be great if the --check-include options could eventually (not necessary for this commit) be auto-derived.

> 

> 

> Can you share your idea how this autodetection could work?


It seems you have only a couple of options Statements, AssumedContext, InvariantAccesses. Most (all) of these options could possibly be identified
by looking for specific string in the CHECK lines. E.g., for AssumedContext.

> > Also, does --check-position=autodetect work after this initial formatting?

> 

> 

> Yes, it looks for the position of the first CHECK, and the reformatted one with --check-position=autodetect will still be in the same position.


Nice.

> > If both would, the majority of the options in https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Meinersbur/polly/update_test/test/CMakeLists.txt would not be necessary any more, right?

> 

> 

> For the moment I do not plan commit the CMakeLists.txt (appart from the configure_file) in its current form as it is too preliminary, would again destroy any manual edits and from our last phone call discussion it seemed there wouldn't be that much interest.


Sure.

> >   I think this is would be desirable.

> 

> 

> Why?


If I would like to update a test case using your script, it's nicer if it just works rather than me having to figure out all options.

Best,
Tobias


http://reviews.llvm.org/D16095