[PATCH] D142270: [ValueTracking] Add tests for known bits after common BMI pattern (blsmsk/blsi); NFC

[Nikita Popov via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

nikic added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/Analysis/ValueTracking/knownbits-bmi-pattern.ll:268
+
+define <2 x i1> @blsmsk_signed_is_false_assume_vec(<2 x i32> %x) {
+; CHECK-LABEL: @blsmsk_signed_is_false_assume_vec(
----------------
goldstein.w.n wrote:
> nikic wrote:
> > FWIW, I would remove all but one of these vector assume tests. They don't really add anything in a world where we just don't support vector assumes. (If we were to add support for them, that would get separate test coverage, and I doubt the canonical pattern we'd require for them would look like what you're doing here -- we'd probably want an assume over an and reduction.)
> > FWIW, I would remove all but one of these vector assume tests. They don't really add anything in a world where we just don't support vector assumes. (If we were to add support for them, that would get separate test coverage, and I doubt the canonical pattern we'd require for them would look like what you're doing here -- we'd probably want an assume over an and reduction.)
> 
> Removed all but 2, one for `blsi` and one for `blsmsk` (one for `add_eval` and one for `cmp_eq`).
> 
> Unrelated but I see you have a page tracking llvm build times. Do you know what the fastest build flags are for building clang itself (for development/rebuilding, don't care about executable perf, just want it to build v fast)?
> 
> Unrelated but I see you have a page tracking llvm build times.

Note that these are build times of other software when compiled with clang, not time to build clang :)

I did actually start to track time to build clang recently, resulting in this fun graph (on a 6 core server): https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/graphs.php?stat=wall-time&startDate=2023-01-22&bench=clang Thanks to ccache, build times tend to jump between 40 seconds and 25 minutes.

> Do you know what the fastest build flags are for building clang itself (for development/rebuilding, don't care about executable perf, just want it to build v fast)?

Not really. It would probably be an unoptimized build without debug info, but if you also want to run tests, it will be slower overall.

I'm personally using release+asserts builds with lld and ccache. Only strong recommendation I have is to not use debug builds outside exceptional circumstances. They are miserable on so many levels, and you're almost always better served using `-debug` logging instead.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D142270/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D142270