On 26 August 2014 08:24, James Molloy <[email protected]> wrote: > I can see that test had to be originally generated somehow, but now we have > it and we don't expect large churn in the intrinsics, does it make sense to > reimplement the autogeneration mechanism? I haven't worked at all on getting > it put back in the new framework, but if people think it's the right thing > to do I can make time to do so. I'm just not convinced that it has value.
Hi James, I think there are two tests that can be derived from here, and maybe both of them can be easily done on their own, depending on how Clang lowers its intrinsics. The first, Clang based test, is more or less what that one is, but instead of checking for asm instructions, it emits IR and checks for the correct builtin call. I should hope that no ARM-specific optimization has occurred by that time. The second, a list of IR one-liners with the intrinsics generated by Clang (well, any front-end), and their unoptimized correspondents. To make sure we don't lose intrinsics by updating one and not the other, we should have a script in tree (utils) that generates them, possibly based on some other source in tree (table gen), for both Clang and LLVM counterparts. Having said that, I don't think this project is particularly critical to our test infrastructure, so I'd give this to a summer student this year or a GSoC project the next. cheers, --renato _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
