diff options
| author | Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri@gmail.com> | 2020-02-12 20:54:39 +0300 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri@gmail.com> | 2020-02-12 21:33:52 +0300 |
| commit | 6030fe01f4ee9a65d92effe44749bee11b36d346 (patch) | |
| tree | 286f91b3a950bcc867345205dd7ff3cbc17f4f8c /lldb/test/API/functionalities/plugins/python_os_plugin/TestPythonOSPlugin.py | |
| parent | 38333164fc7dfc9d4cbf93e443e74809022ed78e (diff) | |
[llvm-exegesis] Exploring X86::OperandType::OPERAND_COND_CODE
Summary:
Currently, we only have nice exploration for LEA instruction,
while for the rest, we rely on `randomizeUnsetVariables()`
to sometimes generate something interesting.
While that works, it isn't very reliable in coverage :)
Here, i'm making an assumption that while we may want to explore
multi-instruction configs, we are most interested in the
characteristics of the main instruction we were asked about.
Which we can do, by taking the existing `randomizeMCOperand()`,
and turning it on it's head - instead of relying on it to randomly fill
one of the interesting values, let's pregenerate all the possible interesting
values for the variable, and then generate as much `InstructionTemplate`
combinations of these possible values for variables as needed/possible.
Of course, that requires invasive changes to no longer pass just the
naked `Instruction`, but sometimes partially filled `InstructionTemplate`.
As it can be seen from the test, this allows us to explore
`X86::OperandType::OPERAND_COND_CODE` for instructions
that take such an operand.
I'm hoping this will greatly simplify exploration.
Reviewers: courbet, gchatelet
Reviewed By: gchatelet
Subscribers: orodley, mgorny, sdardis, tschuett, jrtc27, atanasyan, mstojanovic, andreadb, RKSimon, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74156
Diffstat (limited to 'lldb/test/API/functionalities/plugins/python_os_plugin/TestPythonOSPlugin.py')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions
