<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/rss.xsl.xml"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
    <title>Changes in basic.ll.expected</title>
    <description></description>
    <language>en</language>
    <copyright>Copyright 2015</copyright>
    <generator>Java</generator><item>
        <title>40760060 - [test] Use -passes in lit tests for the UpdateTestChecks tool</title>
        <link>http://172.16.0.5:8080/history/llvm-project-15.0.7/llvm/test/tools/UpdateTestChecks/update_test_checks/Inputs/basic.ll.expected#40760060</link>
        <description>[test] Use -passes in lit tests for the UpdateTestChecks toolThe UpdateTestChecks tool itself does not care about which passmanager that is used in the opt invocation. So the lit tests thatare verifying the behavior of the UpdateTestChecks tool is updatedto use the new-PM syntax (-passes=) when specifying the pass pipelinein the test cases that are used for verifying the UpdateTestCheckstool.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114517

            List of files:
            /llvm-project-15.0.7/llvm/test/tools/UpdateTestChecks/update_test_checks/Inputs/basic.ll.expected</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:51:19 +0000</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Bjorn Pettersson &lt;bjorn.a.pettersson@ericsson.com&gt;</dc:creator>
    </item>
<item>
        <title>e5b87727 - [utils] change default nameless value to &quot;TMP&quot;</title>
        <link>http://172.16.0.5:8080/history/llvm-project-15.0.7/llvm/test/tools/UpdateTestChecks/update_test_checks/Inputs/basic.ll.expected#e5b87727</link>
        <description>[utils] change default nameless value to &quot;TMP&quot;This is effectively reverting rGbfdc2552664d to avoid test churnwhile we figure out a better way forward.We at least salvage the warning on name conflict from that patchthough.If we change the default string again, we may want to mass updatetests at the same time. Alternatively, we could live with the poornaming if we change -instnamer.This also adds a test to LLVM as suggested in the post-commitreview. There&apos;s a clang test that is also affected. That seemslike a layering violation, but I have not looked at fixing that yet.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80584

            List of files:
            /llvm-project-15.0.7/llvm/test/tools/UpdateTestChecks/update_test_checks/Inputs/basic.ll.expected</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:49:07 +0000</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Sanjay Patel &lt;spatel@rotateright.com&gt;</dc:creator>
    </item>
<item>
        <title>240aff80 - Add initial tests for update_{llc_,cc_,}test_checks.py</title>
        <link>http://172.16.0.5:8080/history/llvm-project-15.0.7/llvm/test/tools/UpdateTestChecks/update_test_checks/Inputs/basic.ll.expected#240aff80</link>
        <description>Add initial tests for update_{llc_,cc_,}test_checks.pySummary:This commit adds basic tests for these update script to validate thatthey still work as expected. In the future we could extend these testswhenever new features are added to avoid introducing regressions.Reviewers: xbolva00, MaskRay, jdoerfertReviewed By: jdoerfertSubscribers: llvm-commitsTags: #llvmDifferential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70660

            List of files:
            /llvm-project-15.0.7/llvm/test/tools/UpdateTestChecks/update_test_checks/Inputs/basic.ll.expected</description>
        <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2019 10:25:15 +0000</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Alex Richardson &lt;Alexander.Richardson@cl.cam.ac.uk&gt;</dc:creator>
    </item>
</channel>
</rss>
