[PATCH] D40107: [AArch64] Remove obsoleted feature

[Evandro Menezes via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

evandro marked 3 inline comments as done.
evandro added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/arm64-ldp-cluster.ll:3
-; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=arm64-linux-gnu -mcpu=cortex-a57 -verify-misched -debug-only=machine-scheduler -o - 2>&1 > /dev/null | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=arm64-linux-gnu -mcpu=exynos-m1 -verify-misched -debug-only=machine-scheduler -o - 2>&1 > /dev/null | FileCheck --check-prefix=EXYNOS %s
 
----------------
mcrosier wrote:
> fhahn wrote:
> > Would it make sense to keep this check? It looks like it tests a code path that relied on `Paired128IsSlow` (@ldq_cluster) and it should behave the same now on exynos-m1/m2, without the subtarget feature.
> +1
> 
> This should be a NFC after D39976, right?
Correct.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/arm64-ldp-cluster.ll:3
-; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=arm64-linux-gnu -mcpu=cortex-a57 -verify-misched -debug-only=machine-scheduler -o - 2>&1 > /dev/null | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=arm64-linux-gnu -mcpu=exynos-m1 -verify-misched -debug-only=machine-scheduler -o - 2>&1 > /dev/null | FileCheck --check-prefix=EXYNOS %s
 
----------------
evandro wrote:
> mcrosier wrote:
> > fhahn wrote:
> > > Would it make sense to keep this check? It looks like it tests a code path that relied on `Paired128IsSlow` (@ldq_cluster) and it should behave the same now on exynos-m1/m2, without the subtarget feature.
> > +1
> > 
> > This should be a NFC after D39976, right?
> Correct.
You have a point.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D40107