paulkirth marked 2 inline comments as done. paulkirth added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/test/Transforms/LowerExpectIntrinsic/basic.ll:141 %tobool = icmp ne i64 %expval, 0 -; CHECK: !prof !1 +; CHECK: !prof !2 ; CHECK-NOT: @llvm.expect ---------------- lebedev.ri wrote: > Here and elsewhere: > is `!prof !1` no longer present? The misexpect metadata tags take those slots. `br i1 %tobool, label %if.then, label %if.end, !prof !0, !misexpect !1` Unless my understanding of how the tags work is flawed, I think this is the expected behavior ================ Comment at: llvm/test/Transforms/LowerExpectIntrinsic/basic.ll:292-293 +; CHECK: !3 = !{!"misexpect", i64 1, i64 2000, i64 1} +; CHECK: !4 = !{!"branch_weights", i32 1, i32 2000, i32 1} +; CHECK: !5 = !{!"branch_weights", i32 2000, i32 1, i32 1} ---------------- lebedev.ri wrote: > Should there be a FIXME, are some `misexpect` missing here? This is happenstance unfortunately. ``` ; CHECK: !4 = !{!"branch_weights", i32 1, i32 2000, i32 1} ; CHECK: !5 = !{!"branch_weights", i32 2000, i32 1, i32 1} ``` In both of these cases the expected index is still 0 or 1, so the metadata tags are deduplicated. If we want to check further, then we need to modify the test to select an index greater than 1. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits