llvm dev - Mar 2008 - [LLVMdev] Proposal for GSoC project for improving llvm-test testsuite

hello everybody,
I would like to improve the llvm-test suite[1] as a part of GSoC 2008
program for LLVM.
I have few concerns/problems regarding this, please give me your feedbacks
and suggestions to come up with the proper proposal.

*Goal:* Improve the llvm-test testsuite.

*Idea:* Extend the llvm-test testsuite to include new programs and
benchmarks[2]. Test programs should be more CPU intensive  with few library
dependencies  at the end which are delivered in source format.

I have following few problems, please help me to understand them.

1. Before everything I need to clarify something.
Normally we add tests in a software  to check the correctness of that
software code base. Here in this project llvm trying to specific on third
party software codes. So I am not sure how a test be structured within llvm
to check llvm code base correctness using those third party codes(This is
what I understood, please correct me if I am wrong). I'd glad if I can get
more information on this.

2. As described llvm testsuite program should be more CPU intensive
programs, is there is any reason for that and how  a llvm test suite program
can make more CPU intensive, any points that should consider to write a more
CPU intensive test program for llvm?

3. Since we need to avoid many library dependencies, we need to reduce
dependencies to standard C/C++ libraries and llvm libraries itself.Is this
correct ? If so any points that need to consider writing tests which has few
library decencies?

4. What a test program should cover?
As I read in the testsuite guide [3], test programs in llvm-test covers two
things in general. It check for a particular LLVM feature or trigger a
specific bug in LLVM. So in addition to that any other point that need to
consider, along with the structure of a test case would be helpful
And also as described test programs are code fragments and whole programs. I
think in here also I may need to write either of them depending of the
benchmark trying[2].

5. Finally if I am going cover test programs for[3], may be setting few
targets( targets in the sense that I am writing test programs for A variety
of C++ benchmarks,BioPerf,LLC bench etc.., ) would be help to define the
time line. May be more important one can be done in the first touch.

Please guide me on these. Please correct me if I am wrong in anything.
Thanks in advance!

Me:
I am a computer science undergraduate[4]. I'm interested in compiler
technology and have experience in C/C++ programming.My resume [5].


[1] - http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html#llvmtest
[2] - http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/#benchmarks
[3] - http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#org
[4] - http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
[5] - http://rajikacc.googlepages.com/resume_rajika.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080319/e2e27027/attachment.html>

I would like to see:

(1) LLVM testsuite run every night for all targets, target variants and
operating systems, for example by using an emulator to emulate targets
for which the hardware is not available.  The gcc project has a compile
farm which might be usable for this, but we would need to ask them if it
is ok.
(2) Likewise for the gcc testsuite, with results emailed to the nightly
test mailing list.  I would like the Fortran and Ada testsuites to be run
as well as the C/C++/ObjC tests.

Just some thoughts!

Ciao,

Duncan.

Am Mittwoch, den 19.03.2008, 10:22 +0530 schrieb Rajika
Kumarasiri:
> 2. As described llvm testsuite program should be more CPU intensive
> programs, is there is any reason for that and how  a llvm test suite
> program can make more CPU intensive, any points that should consider
> to write a more CPU intensive test program for llvm?
I guess that's just trying to get the most effect out of machine time.
Running a database application compiled with LLVM will do more to test
the disk subsystem rather than the proper compilation of an application
program.
I think that's twofold.
Tests that run a *lot* of complicated code would test the correctness of
the compiler. Think code written by crazy people that does crazy things;
such code would hit a lot more code paths in the LLVM compiler than
something written by in-house application programmers that slavishly
obey a set of style guidelines.
The other situation is the usual CPU-intensive benchmarks. Number
crunching of any kind, large symbolic computations (such as the program
that first proved the four-color conjecture), scheduling programs for
machine parks or logistics, running any kind of program on a JVM
interpreter. This sort of stuff burns a whole lot of CPU cycles, and you
can easily see whether the optimization passes are doing their work (and
if you hit a case that takes longer than it should, there's an
opportunity to identify yet another optimization technique or a mising
tweak in an existing one that helps this particular application and -
hopefully - all others, too).
> 3. Since we need to avoid many library dependencies, we need to reduce
> dependencies to standard C/C++ libraries and llvm libraries itself.Is
> this correct ?
I suspect dependencies on LLVM libs are OK. An application that needs
lots of standard libraries would more likely hit version mismatch
problems. Or the library in question would be unavailable for all
platform (not so much a problem with open source libs, but closed ones
are probably a no-no).
> 4. What a test program should cover?
> As I read in the testsuite guide [3], test programs in llvm-test
> covers two things in general. It check for a particular LLVM feature
> or trigger a specific bug in LLVM. So in addition to that any other
> point that need to consider, along with the structure of a test case
> would be helpful
> And also as described test programs are code fragments and whole
> programs. I think in here also I may need to write either of them
> depending of the benchmark trying[2].
There are two test suites. One lives in llvm/test and I gather it checks
for regressions and essential features (mostly). It is designed to run
quickly (a few minutes).
The other lives in projects/llvm-test and exercizes the full array of
available tests, in particular those that take a lot of time (such tests
help to identify optimizations that could improve).

To further complicate matters, the llvm/test suite uses dejagnu to
manage tests and collect results, while projects/llvm-test uses just
makefiles.

(I'm pretty sure I overlooked some aspects, I just read some tests,
makefiles, and test results.)

Hope I'm not too far off the mark :-)

Regards,
Jo

Rajika Kumarasiri wrote:
> hello everybody,
> I would like to improve the llvm-test suite[1] as a part of GSoC 2008
program for LLVM.
> I have few concerns/problems regarding this, please give me your feedbacks
and suggestions to come up with the proper proposal.
>   
So, here's the type of programs that I would like to see added to 
llvm-test.  These are biased by past and current research agendas, so 
I'd be interested in knowing whether others would find such additions 
useful:

1) Pointer intensive applications (especially those written in C).  We 
have a number of transforms that either improve memory performance 
(Automatic Pool Allocation) or whose overhead can be greater for pointer 
intensive programs (SAFECode).  Having such programs would be useful for 
our research; they could also be used by others who are working on 
pointer-analysis based optimizations for LLVM.

2) Programs that are memory intensive (for the same reasons that I want 
pointer intensive programs).

3) Programs that are known to have found bugs in LLVM.  There are many 
programs that LLVM compiles correctly.  However, if you find one that 
exposes one or more bugs in LLVM, it might make a good candidate.  
kimwitu++ is in the test suite because it triggered 4 bugs and motivated 
1 JIT optimization.

-- John T.
> Goal: Improve the llvm-test testsuite.
>
> Idea: Extend the llvm-test testsuite to include new programs and
benchmarks[2]. Test programs should be more CPU intensive  with few library
dependencies  at the end which are delivered in source format.
>
> I have following few problems, please help me to understand them.
>
> 1. Before everything I need to clarify something.
> Normally we add tests in a software  to check the correctness of that
software code base. Here in this project llvm trying to specific on third party
software codes. So I am not sure how a test be structured within llvm to check
llvm code base correctness using those third party codes(This is what I
understood, please correct me if I am wrong). I'd glad if I can get more
information on this.
>
> 2. As described llvm testsuite program should be more CPU intensive
programs, is there is any reason for that and how  a llvm test suite program can
make more CPU intensive, any points that should consider to write a more CPU
intensive test program for llvm?
>
> 3. Since we need to avoid many library dependencies, we need to reduce
dependencies to standard C/C++ libraries and llvm libraries itself.Is this
correct ? If so any points that need to consider writing tests which has few
library decencies?
>   
> 4. What a test program should cover?
> As I read in the testsuite guide [3], test programs in llvm-test covers two
things in general. It check for a particular LLVM feature or trigger a specific
bug in LLVM. So in addition to that any other point that need to consider, along
with the structure of a test case would be helpful
> And also as described test programs are code fragments and whole programs.
I think in here also I may need to write either of them depending of the
benchmark trying[2].
>
> 5. Finally if I am going cover test programs for[3], may be setting few
targets( targets in the sense that I am writing test programs for A variety of
C++ benchmarks,BioPerf,LLC bench etc.., ) would be help to define the time line.
May be more important one can be done in the first touch.
>
> Please guide me on these. Please correct me if I am wrong in anything.
Thanks in advance!
>
> Me:
> I am a computer science undergraduate[4]. I'm interested in compiler
technology and have experience in C/C++ programming.My resume [5].
>
>
> [1] - http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html#llvmtest
> [2] - http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/#benchmarks
> [3] - http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#org
> [4] - http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
> [5] - http://rajikacc.googlepages.com/resume_rajika.pdf
>
>
>

On Mar 19, 2008, at 5:13 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> There are two test suites. One lives in llvm/test and I gather it  
> checks
> for regressions and essential features (mostly). It is designed to run
> quickly (a few minutes).
The goal here is to test features and check regressions. The tests are  
written by LLVM developers. Usually the tests are based on new  
features OR derived from bug reports. It is expected that each llvm  
check-in is proceeded by at least on llvm/test check.
> The other lives in projects/llvm-test and exercizes the full array of
> available tests, in particular those that take a lot of time (such  
> tests
> help to identify optimizations that could improve).
The primary goal here is to measure and monitor performance. This  
suite includes benchmarks and applications from various domains. This  
suite uses makefiles to accommodate benchmark and application specific  
build instructions.
> To further complicate matters, the llvm/test suite uses dejagnu to
> manage tests and collect results, while projects/llvm-test uses just
> makefiles.
-
Devang

On Mar 19, 2008, at 1:39 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> I would like to see:
>
> (1) LLVM testsuite run every night for all targets, target variants  
> and
> operating systems, for example by using an emulator to emulate targets
> for which the hardware is not available.  The gcc project has a  
> compile
> farm which might be usable for this, but we would need to ask them  
> if it
> is ok.
> (2) Likewise for the gcc testsuite, with results emailed to the  
> nightly
> test mailing list.  I would like the Fortran and Ada testsuites to  
> be run
> as well as the C/C++/ObjC tests.
>
> Just some thoughts!
I agree this would be useful. However these two items require access  
to lots of machine cycles. Do you anticipate lots of work, enough to  
justify for a GSoC proposal, in existing test setup to accommodate  
these two specific goals ?
>
>
> Ciao,
>
> Duncan.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-
Devang

On Mar 18, 2008, at 9:52 PM, Rajika Kumarasiri wrote:
> hello everybody,
> I would like to improve the llvm-test suite[1] as a part of GSoC  
> 2008 program for LLVM.
> I have few concerns/problems regarding this, please give me your  
> feedbacks and suggestions to come up with the proper proposal.
>
> Goal: Improve the llvm-test testsuite.
There are two parts :
1) llvm-project/llvm/test in svn. This part checks correctness and  
features.
2) Whole program testsuite, which is located at llvm-project/test- 
suite. This part includes benchmarks and applications.
>
>
> Idea: Extend the llvm-test testsuite to include new programs and  
> benchmarks[2]. Test programs should be more CPU intensive  with few  
> library dependencies  at the end which are delivered in source format.
>
> I have following few problems, please help me to understand them.
>
> 1. Before everything I need to clarify something.
> Normally we add tests in a software  to check the correctness of  
> that software code base.
This is done in 1)st part.
> Here in this project llvm trying to specific on third party software  
> codes. So I am not sure how a test be structured within llvm to  
> check llvm code base correctness using those third party codes(This  
> is what I understood, please correct me if I am wrong). I'd glad if  
> I can get more information on this.
When LLVM fails to build third party code, you want to derive small  
test cases to reproduce such failures. This small and independent  
tests are added in 1st part.
> 2. As described llvm testsuite program should be more CPU intensive  
> programs, is there is any reason for that
The goal here (in 2)nd part) is to measure the performance of the code  
generated by LLVM.
> and how  a llvm test suite program can make more CPU intensive, any  
> points that should consider to write a more CPU intensive test  
> program for llvm?
IIUC, You do not want to write new test suite program here. You want  
to adopt existing programs and benchmarks and update them such that  
they fit in 2)nd part.

Let's take BioPerf as an example. You want to take this existing  
benchmark and appropriately update its makefiles so that it builds on  
2)nd part of llvm test-suite. I am not familiar with this benchmark  
itself, but it uses many external libraries the you want to minimize  
library use if possible. Finally, the benchmark is likely to use some  
sort of input data to measure performance. You want to adjust input  
data set such that it does not take hours to run this benchmark and at  
the same time it takes enough time to notice performance changes.
> 3. Since we need to avoid many library dependencies, we need to  
> reduce dependencies to standard C/C++ libraries and llvm libraries  
> itself.Is this correct ? If so any points that need to consider  
> writing tests which has few library decencies?
>
> 4. What a test program should cover?
> As I read in the testsuite guide [3], test programs in llvm-test  
> covers two things in general. It check for a particular LLVM feature  
> or trigger a specific bug in LLVM. So in addition to that any other  
> point that need to consider, along with the structure of a test case  
> would be helpful
> And also as described test programs are code fragments and whole  
> programs. I think in here also I may need to write either of them  
> depending of the benchmark trying[2].
>
> 5. Finally if I am going cover test programs for[3], may be setting  
> few targets( targets in the sense that I am writing test programs  
> for A variety of C++ benchmarks,BioPerf,LLC bench etc.., ) would be  
> help to define the time line. May be more important one can be done  
> in the first touch.
>
>
> Please guide me on these. Please correct me if I am wrong in  
> anything. Thanks in advance!
>
> Me:
> I am a computer science undergraduate[4]. I'm interested in compiler  
> technology and have experience in C/C++ programming.My resume [5].
>
>
> [1] - http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html#llvmtest
> [2] - http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/#benchmarks
> [3] - http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#org
> [4] - http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
> [5] - http://rajikacc.googlepages.com/resume_rajika.pdf
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-
Devang



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080319/5bdcd6b2/attachment.html>