[PATCH] D42732: [x86] Fix nasty bug in the x86 backend that is essentially impossible to hit from IR but creates a minefield for MI passes.

[Chandler Carruth via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

chandlerc added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/bad-tls-fold.mir:19
+---
+# CHECK-LABEL: or:
+name:            or
----------------
probinson wrote:
> chandlerc wrote:
> > probinson wrote:
> > > Drive-by nit:  You don't need the poorly named -LABEL suffix (it doesn't actually identify labels).
> > I don't understand...
> > 
> > My understanding of `CHECK-LABEL` is that it partitions the `CHECK`-reported errors so that its easier to understand them. I want that partition to hook on the label `or` rather than the `orq` instruction, or some other use of the word `or`, so it seems reasonable to include the suffix of `:`? In IR tests we routinely do `CHECK-LABLE: @foo(` to ensure we don't match a function by the name of `@foo.bar`.
> Oh, I didn't notice the other CHECK lines.  Duh.
> Please make all the CHECK lines use consistent indentation and comment characters to accommodate the eyesight-challenged. :-P
I would actually love to do this. However, I'm worried that I actually *need* this format... at least, the existing MIR test I cargo culted from had this. I really agree with you, as it took me forever to even find the CHECKs in that test!

Anyways, I'll experiment to see if I can get something more readable and still go through the MIR testing layer.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D42732