[PATCH] D30521: Introduce llc/ExecuteTestCommands pass

[Matthias Braun via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

MatzeB added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30521#698029, @qcolombet wrote:

> Hi Matthias,
>
> I have mixed feeling on the approach. I like being able to use lite and the .mir format to specify the test, but one the other hand I feel like the ExecuteTestCommand pass will become big and hard to understand.
>  The unittests had this nice property that they are not mixed together (i.e., we shouldn't have a scheduler test with a coalescer test). Here every functionalities will end up in one place and that's what I don't like.
>
> The bottom line is that I like the approach and I would be fine with this as a first step, but we need to think about a way to compartment the different functionalities (e.g., live range testing vs. scheduling testing).
>  Maybe we could have a high level class test command with bb and insn functionalities and specialization classes for LIS and so on?


Fair enough. I think in any case this should be split into some files to have the command implementations separate from the rest and then maybe split it into more files for separate sets of commands. I am less enthusiastic (though also not strictly against), about actually splitting this into separate classes so that we would end up with -run-pass=live-interval-tests or -run-pass=bundling-tests and actually restricting the set of commands available at the same time in a single test.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D30521