[VPlan] Passing non-null instruction when creating VPReductionRecipe in unit test. NFC#120053
Closed
ElvisWang123 wants to merge 1 commit intollvm:mainfrom
Closed
[VPlan] Passing non-null instruction when creating VPReductionRecipe in unit test. NFC#120053ElvisWang123 wants to merge 1 commit intollvm:mainfrom
ElvisWang123 wants to merge 1 commit intollvm:mainfrom
Conversation
Member
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-transforms Author: Elvis Wang (ElvisWang123) Changes1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/llvm/unittests/Transforms/Vectorize/VPlanTest.cpp b/llvm/unittests/Transforms/Vectorize/VPlanTest.cpp
index 3179cfc676ab67..4108b954d13412 100644
--- a/llvm/unittests/Transforms/Vectorize/VPlanTest.cpp
+++ b/llvm/unittests/Transforms/Vectorize/VPlanTest.cpp
@@ -1165,22 +1165,27 @@ TEST(VPRecipeTest, MayHaveSideEffectsAndMayReadWriteMemory) {
}
{
+ auto *Add = BinaryOperator::CreateAdd(PoisonValue::get(Int32),
+ PoisonValue::get(Int32));
VPValue ChainOp;
VPValue VecOp;
VPValue CondOp;
- VPReductionRecipe Recipe(RecurrenceDescriptor(), nullptr, &ChainOp, &CondOp,
+ VPReductionRecipe Recipe(RecurrenceDescriptor(), Add, &ChainOp, &CondOp,
&VecOp, false);
EXPECT_FALSE(Recipe.mayHaveSideEffects());
EXPECT_FALSE(Recipe.mayReadFromMemory());
EXPECT_FALSE(Recipe.mayWriteToMemory());
EXPECT_FALSE(Recipe.mayReadOrWriteMemory());
+ delete Add;
}
{
+ auto *Add = BinaryOperator::CreateAdd(PoisonValue::get(Int32),
+ PoisonValue::get(Int32));
VPValue ChainOp;
VPValue VecOp;
VPValue CondOp;
- VPReductionRecipe Recipe(RecurrenceDescriptor(), nullptr, &ChainOp, &CondOp,
+ VPReductionRecipe Recipe(RecurrenceDescriptor(), Add, &ChainOp, &CondOp,
&VecOp, false);
VPValue EVL;
VPReductionEVLRecipe EVLRecipe(Recipe, EVL, &CondOp);
@@ -1188,6 +1193,7 @@ TEST(VPRecipeTest, MayHaveSideEffectsAndMayReadWriteMemory) {
EXPECT_FALSE(EVLRecipe.mayReadFromMemory());
EXPECT_FALSE(EVLRecipe.mayWriteToMemory());
EXPECT_FALSE(EVLRecipe.mayReadOrWriteMemory());
+ delete Add;
}
{
@@ -1540,30 +1546,38 @@ TEST(VPRecipeTest, dumpRecipeUnnamedVPValuesNotInPlanOrBlock) {
TEST(VPRecipeTest, CastVPReductionRecipeToVPUser) {
LLVMContext C;
+ IntegerType *Int32 = IntegerType::get(C, 32);
+ auto *Add = BinaryOperator::CreateAdd(PoisonValue::get(Int32),
+ PoisonValue::get(Int32));
VPValue ChainOp;
VPValue VecOp;
VPValue CondOp;
- VPReductionRecipe Recipe(RecurrenceDescriptor(), nullptr, &ChainOp, &CondOp,
+ VPReductionRecipe Recipe(RecurrenceDescriptor(), Add, &ChainOp, &CondOp,
&VecOp, false);
EXPECT_TRUE(isa<VPUser>(&Recipe));
VPRecipeBase *BaseR = &Recipe;
EXPECT_TRUE(isa<VPUser>(BaseR));
+ delete Add;
}
TEST(VPRecipeTest, CastVPReductionEVLRecipeToVPUser) {
LLVMContext C;
+ IntegerType *Int32 = IntegerType::get(C, 32);
+ auto *Add = BinaryOperator::CreateAdd(PoisonValue::get(Int32),
+ PoisonValue::get(Int32));
VPValue ChainOp;
VPValue VecOp;
VPValue CondOp;
- VPReductionRecipe Recipe(RecurrenceDescriptor(), nullptr, &ChainOp, &CondOp,
+ VPReductionRecipe Recipe(RecurrenceDescriptor(), Add, &ChainOp, &CondOp,
&VecOp, false);
VPValue EVL;
VPReductionEVLRecipe EVLRecipe(Recipe, EVL, &CondOp);
EXPECT_TRUE(isa<VPUser>(&EVLRecipe));
VPRecipeBase *BaseR = &EVLRecipe;
EXPECT_TRUE(isa<VPUser>(BaseR));
+ delete Add;
}
struct VPDoubleValueDef : public VPRecipeBase {
|
Contributor
Author
|
I think we need to pass non-null underlying instruction when creating VPReductionRecipe in current implementation. Split from #120054. We can add another constructor for VPReductionRecipe without underlying instruction in the future. |
Contributor
|
After recent changes to #120054 IIUC the patch won't be needed any longer? |
Contributor
Author
Yes, not needed but good to have. An alternative implementation is that we could remove all underlying instruction dependency in VPReductionRecipe and not modify the unit test. |
Contributor
Author
|
Closed since ed19620 already contains this changes. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.