[llvm] a33b40d - [NFC][DebugInfo] Autogenerate check lines in assignment-tracking/sroa/*

[Roman Lebedev via llvm-commits]

Thank you!

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 9:47 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't disagree that the UTC results are ugly,
> > but i very strongly believe that not using them
> > is hostile to those who didn't write the original test,
> > because such test are inherently fragile and hard to update,
> > and modifying hand-crafted tests is a massive time sink
> > not the least because it is not always obvious
> > //how// they need to be updated. I remember having to
> > manually write irgen tests for UBSan checks,
> > and that memory does not bring me joy.
> >
> > Would you prefer for me to XFAIL the debuginfo tests that are
> > being affected by patches, and leave them for someone
> > from debuginfo to update?
>
> I am concerned that blindly converting to scripted checks
> is going to lose more coverage than the one example that I
> happened to notice by chance here.
I have no interest in converting every (debuginfo or not) test
to use the script. I simply do not wish to entertain the idea that
one has to spend many tens of minutes manually updating check lines
in tests where there are tools for that particular area of tests.
(Aka, i'm doing this because upcoming patch touches these tests)

> What validation do we
> have that the script is doing reasonable and correct things?
Define reasonable and correct? Pretty much all LLVM tests use it.

> I see that you modified the script; did anyone with
> debug-info expertise review that change?
I only told it that the metadata that is used by !DIAssignID is a metadata,
that should not be hardcoded in check-output but named and checked.

Also, !DIAssignID is not documented in LangRef, it seems?

> Please do not XFAIL any debug-info tests without filing
> an issue first, and if you could cite the issue in a comment
> by the XFAIL, that would be very helpful.
Bingo! And that's precisely the problem.

If you can not rely on a script to do the update,
can you *really* rely on the people, that have absolutely no idea
how the debug info is represented in LLVM IR,
to *manually* update these tests,
more correctly than the script would?

Or should every single patch that would require
updates to debuginfo tests be required
to go through someone from DebugInfo team?

> --paulr
Roman