LOOP_PASS("loop-reduce", LoopStrengthReducePass())
LOOP_PASS("indvars", IndVarSimplifyPass())
LOOP_PASS("loop-unroll-full", LoopFullUnrollPass())
-LOOP_PASS("print-access-info", LoopAccessInfoPrinterPass(dbgs()))
+LOOP_PASS("print<access-info>", LoopAccessInfoPrinterPass(dbgs()))
LOOP_PASS("print<ddg>", DDGAnalysisPrinterPass(dbgs()))
LOOP_PASS("print<iv-users>", IVUsersPrinterPass(dbgs()))
LOOP_PASS("print<loopnest>", LoopNestPrinterPass(dbgs()))
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; In this loop just because we access A through different types (int, float)
; we still have a dependence cycle:
-; RUN: opt -S -disable-output -passes='print-access-info' < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -S -disable-output -passes='print<access-info>' < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; In the function below some of the accesses are done as float types and some
-; RUN: opt -S -disable-output --opaque-pointers -passes='print-access-info' < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -S -disable-output --opaque-pointers -passes='print<access-info>' < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; In the function below some of the accesses are done as float types and some
; are done as i32 types. When doing dependence analysis the type should not
-; RUN: opt -disable-output -passes='print-access-info' %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -disable-output -passes='print-access-info' -max-forked-scev-depth=2 %s 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=RECURSE %s
+; RUN: opt -disable-output -passes='print<access-info>' %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -disable-output -passes='print<access-info>' -max-forked-scev-depth=2 %s 2>&1 | FileCheck -check-prefix=RECURSE %s
target datalayout = "e-m:e-i8:8:32-i16:16:32-i64:64-i128:128-n32:64-S128"
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; for (unsigned i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
; A[i+8] = B[i] + 2;
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; Check that loop-indepedent forward dependences are discovered properly.
;
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -store-to-load-forwarding-conflict-detection=false -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -store-to-load-forwarding-conflict-detection=false -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; This test checks that we prove the strided accesses to be independent before
; concluding that there is a forward dependence.
-; RUN: opt -passes=print-access-info -disable-output %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; Test cases for using the backedge-taken-count to rule out dependencies between
; an invariant and strided accesses.
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; Handle memchecks involving loop-invariant addresses:
;
-; RUN: opt -passes=print-access-info %s -disable-output 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' %s -disable-output 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; This test verifies run-time boundary check of memory accesses.
; The original loop:
-; RUN: opt -passes=print-access-info %s -disable-output 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' %s -disable-output 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; This test defends against accidentally using alloc size instead of store size when performing run-time
; boundary check of memory accesses. The IR in this file is based on
-; RUN: opt -passes=print-access-info %s -disable-output 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' %s -disable-output 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
target datalayout = "e-m:e-i8:8:32-i16:16:32-i64:64-i128:128-n32:64-S128"
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; This is the test case from PR26314.
; When we were retrying dependence checking with memchecks only,
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; For this loop:
; for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; Test that the loop accesses are proven safe in this case.
; The analyzer uses to be confused by the "diamond" because getUnderlyingObjects
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-i128:128-n32:64-S128"
target triple = "aarch64--linux-gnueabi"
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
%s1 = type { [32000 x double], [32000 x double], [32000 x double] }
-; RUN: opt -aa-pipeline=basic-aa -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -aa-pipeline=basic-aa -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
target datalayout = "e-m:o-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(loop-rotate),print-access-info' -S %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -passes='loop(loop-rotate),invalidate<loops>,print-access-info' -S %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='loop(loop-rotate),print<access-info>' -S %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='loop(loop-rotate),invalidate<loops>,print<access-info>' -S %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; Make sure that the result of analysis is consistent regardless of blocks
; order as they are stored in loop. This test demonstrates the situation when
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; We give up analyzing the dependences in this loop due to non-constant
; distance between A[i+offset] and A[i] and add memchecks to prove
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; The runtime memory check code and the access grouping
; algorithm both assume that the start and end values
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s
; This regression test is defending against a use of the wrong interface
; of TypeSize (implicit conversion to a scalar). This issue cropped up
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; If the arrays don't alias this loop is safe with no memchecks:
; for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; Analyze this loop:
; for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; Test to confirm LAA will find multiple stores to an invariant address in the
; inner loop.
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; Test to confirm LAA will not find store to invariant address.
; Inner loop has no store to invariant address.
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; Inner loop has a store to invariant address, but LAA does not need to identify
; the store to invariant address, since it is a single store.
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-i128:128-n32:64-S128"
-; RUN: opt -S -disable-output -passes='print-access-info' %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -S -disable-output -passes='print<access-info>' %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
;
target datalayout = "e-m:o-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
target datalayout = "e-m:o-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
target triple = "x86_64-apple-macosx10.10.0"
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; In:
;
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; This loop:
;
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; Analyze this loop:
; for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
; Analyze this loop:
; for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
-; RUN: opt -passes='print-access-info' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=LAA
+; RUN: opt -passes='print<access-info>' -aa-pipeline='basic-aa' -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=LAA
target datalayout = "e-m:o-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
; RUN: -verify-loop-info -verify-dom-info -S < %s | \
; RUN: FileCheck --check-prefix=VECTORIZE %s
-; RUN: opt -aa-pipeline=basic-aa -passes='loop-distribute,print-access-info' -enable-loop-distribute \
+; RUN: opt -aa-pipeline=basic-aa -passes='loop-distribute,print<access-info>' -enable-loop-distribute \
; RUN: -verify-loop-info -verify-dom-info -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=ANALYSIS
; The memcheck version of basic.ll. We should distribute and vectorize the
; RUN: opt -aa-pipeline=basic-aa -passes=loop-distribute -enable-loop-distribute -verify-loop-info -verify-dom-info -S \
; RUN: < %s | FileCheck %s
-; RUN: opt -aa-pipeline=basic-aa -passes='loop-distribute,loop(print-access-info)' -enable-loop-distribute \
+; RUN: opt -aa-pipeline=basic-aa -passes='loop-distribute,loop(print<access-info>)' -enable-loop-distribute \
; RUN: -verify-loop-info -verify-dom-info -disable-output < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=ANALYSIS
; RUN: opt -aa-pipeline=basic-aa -passes=loop-distribute,loop-vectorize -enable-loop-distribute -force-vector-width=4 -S \
; analysis is cached, then unroll the loop (deleting it) and make sure that the
; next function doesn't get a cache "hit" for this stale analysis result.
;
-; RUN: opt -S -passes='loop(require<access-info>),loop-unroll,loop(print-access-info)' -debug-pass-manager < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt -S -passes='loop(require<access-info>),loop-unroll,loop(print<access-info>)' -debug-pass-manager < %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
;
; CHECK: Running analysis: LoopAnalysis
; CHECK: Running analysis: InnerAnalysisManagerProxy<