Daniel Dunbar
2009-Sep-06 01:40 UTC
[LLVMdev] should we stop using llvm-as/llvm-dis in tests?
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Chris Lattner<clattner at apple.com> wrote:> > On Sep 5, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > >> A recent commit added the ability to opt and llc to read .ll files >> directly. Should we go through and update the existing tests? > > Yes, I think that Dan is planning to do this.... and it is definitely worth doing. On my system a 'time' of make check reports that about 50% of the real time running make check is spent in the OS. This probably also limits the efficacy of attempts to parallelize the test suite, if someone was crazy enough to do that. Using opt -S for tests that end up going to llvm-dis would also be nice. - Daniel
Óscar Fuentes
2009-Sep-06 02:05 UTC
[LLVMdev] should we stop using llvm-as/llvm-dis in tests?
Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> writes:>>> A recent commit added the ability to opt and llc to read .ll files >>> directly. Should we go through and update the existing tests? >> >> Yes, I think that Dan is planning to do this. > > ... and it is definitely worth doing. On my system a 'time' of make > check reports that about 50% of the real time running make check is > spent in the OS. This probably also limits the efficacy of attempts to > parallelize the test suite, if someone was crazy enough to do that.Why would be crazy to run the test suite on parallel? Because DejaGNU limitations? My compiler's test suite is driven by a poor-man's version of DejaGNU (also written on Tcl, but not requiring Expect) that supports parallel runs (with a -j command-line parameter, á la make) and works on Linux and Windows. Since long time ago I'm thinking on expanding its functionality for accepting DejaGNU test cases and add it to the cmake build, but I'm afraid of corner cases. You know, the 99% of the complexity on the 1% of the instances. Would you consider parallel runs and Windows support enough motivation for rewriting those (hypothetical) corner cases as equivalent but simpler ones? -- Óscar
Daniel Dunbar
2009-Sep-06 02:24 UTC
[LLVMdev] should we stop using llvm-as/llvm-dis in tests?
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:> Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> writes: >> ... and it is definitely worth doing. On my system a 'time' of make >> check reports that about 50% of the real time running make check is >> spent in the OS. This probably also limits the efficacy of attempts to >> parallelize the test suite, if someone was crazy enough to do that. > > Why would be crazy to run the test suite on parallel? Because DejaGNU > limitations?It was a joke, I'm actively working on this. Stay tuned. :) - Daniel