chandlerc added a comment. Wooot about finally having a test case! (Sorry for nit picking it a bit ....)
================ Comment at: llvm/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/FullUnroll.ll:4-6 +; We don't end up deleting the loop, but we remove everything inside of it so checking for any +; reasonable instruction from the original loop will work. +; CHECK-NOT: br i1 ---------------- Make sure it is in the correct function at least, and maybe after the label for the loop header? ================ Comment at: llvm/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/FullUnroll.ll:12-17 +; Function Attrs: noinline optnone uwtable +define dso_local void @_Z3Runv() #0 { +entry: + call void @_Z6Helperv() + ret void +} ---------------- Are both functions needed? ================ Comment at: llvm/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/FullUnroll.ll:19-20 + +; Function Attrs: noinline nounwind optnone uwtable +define linkonce_odr dso_local void @_Z6Helperv() #1 comdat { +entry: ---------------- Nit, but minimize and clean this function up a touch? At the least, removing all the target features seems valuable, and I'd give things stable names instead of numbered values. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71687/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71687 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits