Mehdi Amini | 89bf969 | 2016-12-28 22:30:28 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | ; RUN: llvm-as <%s -bitcode-mdindex-threshold=0 | llvm-bcanalyzer -dump | FileCheck %s |
Duncan P. N. Exon Smith | 29fa04d | 2016-04-23 04:59:22 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 2 | ; Check that distinct nodes break uniquing cycles, so that uniqued subgraphs |
| 3 | ; are always in post-order. |
| 4 | ; |
| 5 | ; It may not be immediately obvious why this is an interesting graph. There |
| 6 | ; are three nodes in a cycle, and one of them (!1) is distinct. Because the |
| 7 | ; entry point is !2, a naive post-order traversal would give !3, !1, !2; but |
| 8 | ; this means when !3 is parsed the reader will need a forward reference for !2. |
| 9 | ; Forward references for uniqued node operands are expensive, whereas they're |
| 10 | ; cheap for distinct node operands. If the distinct node is emitted first, the |
| 11 | ; uniqued nodes don't need any forward references at all. |
| 12 | |
| 13 | ; Nodes in this testcase are numbered to match how they are referenced in |
| 14 | ; bitcode. !3 is referenced as opN=3. |
| 15 | |
| 16 | ; CHECK: <DISTINCT_NODE op0=3/> |
| 17 | !1 = distinct !{!3} |
| 18 | |
| 19 | ; CHECK-NEXT: <NODE op0=1/> |
| 20 | !2 = !{!1} |
| 21 | |
| 22 | ; CHECK-NEXT: <NODE op0=2/> |
| 23 | !3 = !{!2} |
| 24 | |
Mehdi Amini | 89bf969 | 2016-12-28 22:30:28 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 25 | ; Before the named records we emit the index containing the position of the |
| 26 | ; previously emitted records |
| 27 | ; CHECK-NEXT: <INDEX {{.*}} (offset match) |
| 28 | |
Duncan P. N. Exon Smith | 29fa04d | 2016-04-23 04:59:22 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 29 | ; Note: named metadata nodes are not cannot reference null so their operands |
| 30 | ; are numbered off-by-one. |
| 31 | ; CHECK-NEXT: <NAME |
| 32 | ; CHECK-NEXT: <NAMED_NODE op0=1/> |
| 33 | !named = !{!2} |