On 06/09/2020 20:10, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 05:38:54PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: >> On 06/09/2020 13:40, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: >> Hmm, I can't see an optimization for these two! :( >> Care to explain just what you expect? (maybe with an >> '*.expected' file?) > > I saw your other email about it but I just would like to add > these sort of tests should really be read at the IR level, > the output of 'test-linearize $file.c'. Sometimes, the C file > is just a convoluted way to create some specific sequence of > IR instructions. Also, often the name of the file and the Yeah, indeed - which is kinda why I would have liked to see an '*.expected' file! It is just hard to try looking at the C code and imagine the likely optimization opportunities and the effect they have on the IR. :-D Having said that, I do understand why you would rather not do that. It just makes reviewing such patches a hard job, requiring a bit of imagination (which I don't have!). :-P > comments directly refer to these instructions (like here 'trunc' > for the instruction OP_TRUNC). > > For the simplification phase, it would be nice and easier to be > able to do the tests directly in the IR format. It shouldn't take > much time but ... one day ... maybe :) yeah, we can dream! ;-) ATB, Ramsay Jones
