[PATCH] D107536: [BitcodeAnalyzer] allow a motivated user to dump BLOCKINFO

[Mehdi AMINI via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

mehdi_amini added a comment.

In D107536#3052989 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107536#3052989>, @xgupta wrote:

> Yes, we don't use llvm-stress in testcases. I think you take input .bc file from  llvm/test/Other/Inputs. Other than that testcase, changes LGTM but @mehdi_amini might give it final approval.

Thanks for pulling me in, but I really haven't worked in this area for a long time :)
If you have a hard time finding a reviewer you can always ping the code owner for bitcode and ask them to help find one.

Happy to help thought: so LGTM with the inline comments addressed!



================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeAnalyzer.cpp:762
+    // block, so only do it if the user explicitly requests it.
+    DumpRecords = O && O->DumpBlockinfo;
   }
----------------



================
Comment at: llvm/test/tools/llvm-bcanalyzer/dump-blockinfo.test:1
+# RUN: llvm-stress | llvm-as - | llvm-bcanalyzer --dump --dump-blockinfo | FileCheck %s
+
----------------
tejohnson wrote:
> woodruffw wrote:
> > N.B.: Please let me know if using `llvm-stress` like this isn't advisable; I can check in a test input instead if that's preferred.
> Can you make this a small .ll test instead (see examples in other test directories) and just run it through opt to get a bitcode and then run llvm-bcanalyzer on that?
> 
> And then is it possible to check some of the expected contents of the blockinfo section?
What Theresa suggests makes sense to me.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D107536/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D107536