[PATCH] D71667: [XCOFF][AIX] Fix for missing of undefined symbols from symbol table

[Jason Liu via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jasonliu marked 2 inline comments as done.
jasonliu added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/aix-xcoff-toc.ll:1
 ; RUN: llc  -verify-machineinstrs -mcpu=pwr7 -mtriple powerpc-ibm-aix-xcoff < %s | FileCheck --check-prefixes CHECK,CHECK32 %s
 ; RUN: llc  -verify-machineinstrs -mcpu=pwr7 -mtriple powerpc64-ibm-aix-xcoff < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck --check-prefixes CHECK,CHECK64  %s
----------------
DiggerLin wrote:
> minor: change to -mcpu=pwr4 ?
Addressed when landed. Thanks.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/aix-xcoff-toc.ll:73
 ; SYM:       File: {{.*}}aix-xcoff-toc.ll.tmp.o
-; SYM:       Symbol {{[{][[:space:]] *}}Index: [[#INDX:]]{{[[:space:]] *}}Name: TOC
+; SYM:       Symbol {{[{][[:space:]] *}}Index: [[#UNDEF_INDX:]]{{[[:space:]] *}}Name: a
+; SYM-NEXT:   Value (RelocatableAddress): 0x0
----------------
daltenty wrote:
> My only concern here is that maybe these don't belong in this testcase. This test case tests exclusively TOC related functionality currently. Perhaps adding an undef test would be better (and possibly folding some of the undef function tests into it).
I thought about making a separate test case. But I figure I would write out similar llvm IR in order to trigger a undefined variable and undefined function descriptor generation.
So I think it's actually a good fit to put them together. In fact, it is precisely lack of those tests in this file so that  we didn't find this bug in the first place. 


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D71667/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D71667