Details
- Reviewers
dblaikie - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rG33d44b762e65: [OpaquePtr][Inline] Use byval type instead of pointee type
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
Can this be tested with some opaque pointer IR using byval?
llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/InlineFunction.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1903 | Might be reaching the point where a struct with named members would be suitable/more self-documenting? |
As per ( https://reviews.llvm.org/D105710#2874527 ) I still think there's room for valuable testing at this stage in the opaque pointer work.
Partly I think it's a matter of changing the approach from source based to test based - eg: running some chunk of the test suite with opaque pointers forced on, watching what tests fail, pick one, add a run line to force opaque pointers on, fixing the code until it passes. Rather than finding getElementPointer calls and changing them directly based on source inspection & existing regression testing only.
I got a second opinion from rnk and he agreed that it's probably not necessary to add tests unless we're adding a new code path.
Might be reaching the point where a struct with named members would be suitable/more self-documenting?