On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 09:12:21PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > > 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 Yes, sorry. I realized this only now. I've added a very small comment with the expected result to the tests. -- Luc
