dblaikie added a comment. In D103615#2847965 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615#2847965>, @stefanp wrote:
> In D103615#2847650 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615#2847650>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> In D103615#2847118 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615#2847118>, @bmahjour >> wrote: >> >>> In D103615#2847047 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615#2847047>, @stefanp >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm sorry I missed the asserts requirement. >>>> I will recommit this patch after I add `REQUIRES: asserts`. >>> >>> Instead of disabling the tests for non-assert builds, can we just remove >>> the `entry:` checks at the beginning of each function? The rest of the IR >>> checks should pass since they use a regexp so they should match for either >>> named or unnamed instructions. >> >> (generally: disabling the test in non-asserts builds isn't the right path, >> modifying the test so it doesn't depend on asserts IR naming is the right >> path) >> >> Yes, probably removing the `entry:` check would be sufficient - give it a >> test locally and see how it goes. (it does mean the "CHECK-NEXT" after that >> (for the first instruction) would have to be a plain "CHECK" - so that the >> test could pass both in the presence and absence of the entry label. > > I've removed all of the `entry:` checks and changed for next line to `CHECK:` > and that seems to be working with assertions off. I will recommit the patch > like that if this is preferred. Sounds alright to me Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D103615 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
