Only tests in llvm/test/Analysis.
-analyze is legacy PM-specific.
This only touches files with `-passes`.
I looked through everything and made sure that everything had a new PM equivalent.
Reviewed By: MaskRay
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109040
Pin RUN lines with -analyze to legacy PM, add corresponding NPM RUN line if missing.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87658
Just as as llvm IR supports explicitly specifying numeric value ids
for instructions, and emits them by default in textual output, now do
the same for blocks.
This is a slightly incompatible change in the textual IR format.
Previously, llvm would parse numeric labels as string names. E.g.
define void @f() {
br label %"55"
55:
ret void
}
defined a label *named* "55", even without needing to be quoted, while
the reference required quoting. Now, if you intend a block label which
looks like a value number to be a name, you must quote it in the
definition too (e.g. `"55":`).
Previously, llvm would print nameless blocks only as a comment, and
would omit it if there was no predecessor. This could cause confusion
for readers of the IR, just as unnamed instructions did prior to the
addition of "%5 = " syntax, back in 2008 (PR2480).
Now, it will always print a label for an unnamed block, with the
exception of the entry block. (IMO it may be better to print it for
the entry-block as well. However, that requires updating many more
tests.)
Thus, the following is supported, and is the canonical printing:
define i32 @f(i32, i32) {
%3 = add i32 %0, %1
br label %4
4:
ret i32 %3
}
New test cases covering this behavior are added, and other tests
updated as required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58548
llvm-svn: 356789
These examples are variations that were inspired from a small subgraph taken
from paper.ll which are interesting as they show certain issues with infinite
loops.
llvm-svn: 286450
Arthur Eubanks