[PATCH] D137482: [LoongArch] Support parsing target specific flags for MIR
wanglei via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Sat Nov 5 17:47:15 PDT 2022
wangleiat added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/test/CodeGen/LoongArch/mir-target-flags.ll:3
+; RUN: --relocation-model=pic %s -o %t.mir
+; RUN: llc --mtriple=loongarch64 --run-pass loongarch-prera-expand-pseudo \
+; RUN: %t.mir -o - | FileCheck %s
----------------
wangleiat wrote:
> wangleiat wrote:
> > wangleiat wrote:
> > > MaskRay wrote:
> > > > `llc --mtriple=loongarch64 --run-pass loongarch-prera-expand-pseudo ` does not change the output. Is it needed?
> > > > `llc --mtriple=loongarch64 --run-pass loongarch-prera-expand-pseudo ` does not change the output. Is it needed?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your review. Yes, it is necessary. In fact, this step is the real test for parsing target flags.
> > > `llc --mtriple=loongarch64 --run-pass loongarch-prera-expand-pseudo ` does not change the output. Is it needed?
> >
> >
> > > `llc --mtriple=loongarch64 --run-pass loongarch-prera-expand-pseudo ` does not change the output. Is it needed?
> >
> > Thanks for your review. Yes, it is necessary. In fact, this step is the real test for parsing target flags.
>
> I seem to have misunderstood your meaning, maybe I don't need that pass? It may not be needed, I will verify and modify it.
> > `llc --mtriple=loongarch64 --run-pass loongarch-prera-expand-pseudo ` does not change the output. Is it needed?
>
>
I verified it, and it seems that there is no good way to remove this pass to verify that the correct flags are generated in the mir, unless the previous step adds check. The benefit of this is that both the output and the input are validated.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137482/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137482
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list