[LV] Fixup tests following 93073af

[artagnon]

Follow up on 93073af ([LV] Move 3 functions into VPlanTransforms (NFC)) to update tests in the EXPENSIVE_CHECKS case: moving the functions and calling runPass has caused the emission of some additional remarks. In an effort to make the tests less fragile, replace CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT with CHECK-REMARKS.

-- 8< --
Will only merge after the local build with expensive-checks finishes, and the tests pass locally.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-transforms

Author: Ramkumar Ramachandra (artagnon)

Changes

Follow up on 93073af ([LV] Move 3 functions into VPlanTransforms (NFC)) to update tests in the EXPENSIVE_CHECKS case: moving the functions and calling runPass has caused the emission of some additional remarks. In an effort to make the tests less fragile, replace CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT with CHECK-REMARKS.

-- 8< --
Will only merge after the local build with expensive-checks finishes, and the tests pass locally.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/162091.diff

2 Files Affected:

• (modified) llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/scalable-call.ll (+11-11)
• (modified) llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/tail-folding-vectorization-factor-1.ll (+1-1)

diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/scalable-call.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/scalable-call.ll
index dabff1beefb38..9fec0b3003e93 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/scalable-call.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/scalable-call.ll
@@ -101,9 +101,9 @@ for.end:
 }
 
 ; CHECK-REMARKS: UserVF ignored because of invalid costs.
-; CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT: t.c:3:10: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): load
-; CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT: t.c:3:20: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1, vscale x 2): call to llvm.sin
-; CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT: t.c:3:30: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): store
+; CHECK-REMARKS: t.c:3:10: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): load
+; CHECK-REMARKS: t.c:3:20: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1, vscale x 2): call to llvm.sin
+; CHECK-REMARKS: t.c:3:30: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): store
 define void @vec_sin_no_mapping(ptr noalias nocapture %dst, ptr noalias nocapture readonly %src, i64 %n) {
 ; CHECK: @vec_sin_no_mapping
 ; CHECK: call fast <2 x float> @llvm.sin.v2f32
@@ -127,11 +127,11 @@ for.cond.cleanup:                                 ; preds = %for.body
 }
 
 ; CHECK-REMARKS: UserVF ignored because of invalid costs.
-; CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT: t.c:3:10: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): load
-; CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT: t.c:3:30: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): fadd
-; CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT: t.c:3:30: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1, vscale x 2): call to llvm.sin
-; CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT: t.c:3:20: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1, vscale x 2): call to llvm.sin
-; CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT: t.c:3:40: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): store
+; CHECK-REMARKS: t.c:3:10: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): load
+; CHECK-REMARKS: t.c:3:30: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): fadd
+; CHECK-REMARKS: t.c:3:30: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1, vscale x 2): call to llvm.sin
+; CHECK-REMARKS: t.c:3:20: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1, vscale x 2): call to llvm.sin
+; CHECK-REMARKS: t.c:3:40: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): store
 define void @vec_sin_no_mapping_ite(ptr noalias nocapture %dst, ptr noalias nocapture readonly %src, i64 %n) {
 ; CHECK: @vec_sin_no_mapping_ite
 ; CHECK-NOT: <vscale x
@@ -165,9 +165,9 @@ for.cond.cleanup:                                 ; preds = %for.body
 }
 
 ; CHECK-REMARKS: UserVF ignored because of invalid costs.
-; CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT: t.c:3:10: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): load
-; CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT: t.c:3:20: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1, vscale x 2): call to llvm.sin
-; CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT: t.c:3:30: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): store
+; CHECK-REMARKS: t.c:3:10: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): load
+; CHECK-REMARKS: t.c:3:20: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1, vscale x 2): call to llvm.sin
+; CHECK-REMARKS: t.c:3:30: Recipe with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): store
 define void @vec_sin_fixed_mapping(ptr noalias nocapture %dst, ptr noalias nocapture readonly %src, i64 %n) {
 ; CHECK: @vec_sin_fixed_mapping
 ; CHECK: call fast <2 x float> @llvm.sin.v2f32
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/tail-folding-vectorization-factor-1.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/tail-folding-vectorization-factor-1.ll
index 3bc5da155b351..659398c920a3f 100644
--- a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/tail-folding-vectorization-factor-1.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/tail-folding-vectorization-factor-1.ll
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 ; loop-vectorization is only unrolling but not vectorizing.
 
 ; CHECK-REMARKS:      remark: {{.*}} interleaved loop (interleaved count: 4)
-; CHECK-REMARKS-NEXT: remark: {{.*}} interleaved loop (interleaved count: 4)
+; CHECK-REMARKS:      remark: {{.*}} interleaved loop (interleaved count: 4)
 ; CHECK-REMARKS-NOT:  remark: {{.*}} vectorized loop
 
 define void @VF1-VPlanExe(ptr %dst) {

[fhahn]

I don't think updating the tests makes sense, if they now fail due to a verifier failure. There should be no verifier failures for valid input

[artagnon]

I don't think updating the tests makes sense, if they now fail due to a verifier failure. There should be no verifier failures for valid input

Nothing fails, and just some additional remarks are emitted?

[artagnon]

I don't think updating the tests makes sense, if they now fail due to a verifier failure. There should be no verifier failures for valid input

Nothing fails, and just some additional remarks are emitted?

Wait a sec: what does this mean?

"Phi-like recipe with different number of operands and predecessors."

It's a failure?

    if (auto *PhiIRI = dyn_cast<VPIRPhi>(&*RecipeI)) {
      if (PhiIRI->getNumOperands() != VPBB->getNumPredecessors()) {
        errs() << "Phi-like recipe with different number of operands and "
                  "predecessors.\n";
        // TODO: Print broken recipe. At the moment printing an ill-formed
        // phi-like recipe may crash.
        return false;
      }
    }

Will revert the patch instead.