On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 10:56, Florian Hahn <florian_h...@apple.com> wrote: > Have you considered alternatives to checking the assembly for ensuring > vectorization or other transformations? For example, instead of checking the > assembly, we could check LLVM’s statistics or optimization remarks. If you > want to ensure a loop got vectorized, you could check the loop-vectorize > remarks, which should give you the position of the loop in the source and > vectorization/interleave factor used. There are few other things that could > go wrong later on that would prevent vector instruction selection, but I > think it should be sufficient to guard against most cases where we loose > vectorization and should be much more robust to unrelated changes. If there > are additional properties you want to ensure, they potentially could be added > to the remark as well.
We used to have lots of them, at least in the initial implementation of the loop vectoriser (I know, many years ago). The thread has enough points not to repeat here, but I guess the main point is to make sure we don't duplicate tests, increasing CI cost (especially on slower hardware). I'd recommend trying to move any e2e tests into the test-suite and make it easier to run, and leave specific tests only in the repo (to guarantee independence of components). The last thing we want is to create direct paths from front-ends to back-ends and make LLVM IR transformation less flexible. cheers, --renato _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
