Florian Hahn via cfe-dev <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> writes: > 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.
Yes, absolutely. We have tests that do things like that. I don't want to focus on the asm bit, that's just one type of test. The larger issue is end-to-end tests that ensure the compiler and other tools are working correctly, be it from checking messages, statistics, asm or something else. > This idea of leveraging statistics and optimization remarks to track > the impact of changes on overall optimization results is nothing new > and I think several people already discussed it in various forms. For > regular benchmark runs, in addition to tracking the existing > benchmarks, we could also track selected optimization remarks > (e.g. loop-vectorize, but not necessarily noisy ones like gvn) and > statistics. Comparing those run-to-run could potentially highlight new > end-to-end issues on a much larger scale, across all existing > benchmarks integrated in test-suite. We might be able to detect loss > in vectorization pro-actively, instead of requiring someone to file a > bug report and then we add an isolated test after the fact. That's an interesting idea! I would love to get more use out of test-suite. -David _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev