From 7332e0455fd40597630f7ec3f36f64258c2f10c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sanjay Patel Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:03:01 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] make current codegen visible in the checks, so we can decide if it's right llvm-svn: 245120 --- llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/memcpy-2.ll | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/memcpy-2.ll b/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/memcpy-2.ll index 0111c0d433f1..1d3033fd77bd 100644 --- a/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/memcpy-2.ll +++ b/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/memcpy-2.ll @@ -3,6 +3,17 @@ ; RUN: llc < %s -mattr=+sse,-sse2 -mtriple=i686-apple-darwin -mcpu=core2 | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=SSE1 ; RUN: llc < %s -mattr=-sse -mtriple=i686-apple-darwin -mcpu=core2 | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=NOSSE ; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=x86_64-apple-darwin -mcpu=core2 | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=X86-64 +; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=x86_64-apple-darwin -mcpu=nehalem | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=NHM_64 + +;;; TODO: The last run line chooses cpu=nehalem to reveal possible bugs in the "t4" test case. +;;; +;;; Nehalem has a 'fast unaligned memory' attribute, so (1) some of the loads and stores +;;; are certainly unaligned and (2) the first load and first store overlap with the second +;;; load and second store respectively. +;;; +;;; Is either of the sequences ideal? +;;; Is the ideal code being generated for all CPU models? + @.str = internal constant [25 x i8] c"image\00\00\00\00\00\00\00\00\00\00\00\00\00\00\00\00\00\00\00\00" @.str2 = internal constant [30 x i8] c"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\00", align 4 @@ -186,6 +197,13 @@ entry: ; X86-64: movq %rax ; X86-64: movw $120 ; X86-64: movl $2021161080 + +; NHM_64-LABEL: t4: +; NHM_64: movups _.str2+14(%rip), %xmm0 +; NHM_64: movups %xmm0, -26(%rsp) +; NHM_64: movups _.str2(%rip), %xmm0 +; NHM_64: movaps %xmm0, -40(%rsp) + %tmp1 = alloca [30 x i8] %tmp2 = bitcast [30 x i8]* %tmp1 to i8* call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i32(i8* %tmp2, i8* getelementptr inbounds ([30 x i8], [30 x i8]* @.str2, i32 0, i32 0), i32 30, i32 1, i1 false)