Skip to content

[NFC] Reduce number of run steps in ppc rop-protect test. #139607

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mandlebug
Copy link
Contributor

Test was running both -mcpu=pwrN and -mcpu=powerN compile steps for power N = 8, 9 and 10. Reduce to one run step for each form using power8 for one instance and power 10 for the other.

Test was running both -mcpu=pwrN and -mcpu=powerN compile steps for
power N = 8, 9 and 10. Reduce to one run step for each form using power8
for one instance and power 10 for the other.
@mandlebug mandlebug requested review from amy-kwan and RolandF77 May 12, 2025 19:22
@mandlebug mandlebug self-assigned this May 12, 2025
@llvmbot llvmbot added clang Clang issues not falling into any other category clang:driver 'clang' and 'clang++' user-facing binaries. Not 'clang-cl' labels May 12, 2025
@llvmbot
Copy link
Member

llvmbot commented May 12, 2025

@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-driver

Author: Sean Fertile (mandlebug)

Changes

Test was running both -mcpu=pwrN and -mcpu=powerN compile steps for power N = 8, 9 and 10. Reduce to one run step for each form using power8 for one instance and power 10 for the other.


Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139607.diff

1 Files Affected:

  • (modified) clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c (-10)
diff --git a/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c b/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c
index 50eaef3ed770b..541dc2bf99c3f 100644
--- a/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c
+++ b/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c
@@ -1,20 +1,10 @@
 // RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
 // RUN:   -mcpu=pwr10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
 // RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=power10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=pwr9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=power9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=pwr8 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
 // RUN:   -mcpu=power8 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
 
 // RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
 // RUN:   -mcpu=pwr7 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NOROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=power7 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NOROP
 
 #ifdef __ROP_PROTECT__
 static_assert(false, "ROP Protect enabled");

@llvmbot
Copy link
Member

llvmbot commented May 12, 2025

@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang

Author: Sean Fertile (mandlebug)

Changes

Test was running both -mcpu=pwrN and -mcpu=powerN compile steps for power N = 8, 9 and 10. Reduce to one run step for each form using power8 for one instance and power 10 for the other.


Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139607.diff

1 Files Affected:

  • (modified) clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c (-10)
diff --git a/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c b/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c
index 50eaef3ed770b..541dc2bf99c3f 100644
--- a/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c
+++ b/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c
@@ -1,20 +1,10 @@
 // RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
 // RUN:   -mcpu=pwr10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
 // RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=power10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=pwr9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=power9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=pwr8 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
 // RUN:   -mcpu=power8 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
 
 // RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
 // RUN:   -mcpu=pwr7 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NOROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN:   -mcpu=power7 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NOROP
 
 #ifdef __ROP_PROTECT__
 static_assert(false, "ROP Protect enabled");

@mandlebug mandlebug requested a review from lei137 May 12, 2025 20:18
@mandlebug mandlebug changed the title Reduce number of run steps in ppc rop-protect test. [NFC] Reduce number of run steps in ppc rop-protect test. May 13, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
clang:driver 'clang' and 'clang++' user-facing binaries. Not 'clang-cl' clang Clang issues not falling into any other category
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants