On Oct 11, 2008, at 12:05 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote:> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > wrote: >> Ideas and feedback are useful. However, one systematic problem that >> the LLVM community has is that most of the regular contributors are >> on >> unix systems. As you probably know, much open source software works >> by having people 'scratch their itch'. You (and many other people on >> windows) are very itchy about this, but you're not producing code. > > The last good 2 or 3 times for various open-source projects I have > made code for ended up not using it for similar reasons to "not enough > windows developers". Nowadays I have very little time to spare. My > method would work equally well for testing everywhere, not just on any > one system, and I can help set it up, but would need help in actually > creating the tests as I have not used llvm in depth enough to know how > it is supposed to act and so forth, but I can help setup a testing > framework if people would actually use it.If you were interested in working on this project, it seems that the place to start is not by adding new crazy sorts of API tests for LLVM. It would be a better use of your time to take what we already have and make it work (with one of your proposals) on windows. When the infrastructure is set up, others could add tests in areas that they are knowledgeable about. -Chris
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:> > On Oct 11, 2008, at 12:05 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> >> wrote: >>> Ideas and feedback are useful. However, one systematic problem that >>> the LLVM community has is that most of the regular contributors are >>> on >>> unix systems. As you probably know, much open source software works >>> by having people 'scratch their itch'. You (and many other people on >>> windows) are very itchy about this, but you're not producing code. >> >> The last good 2 or 3 times for various open-source projects I have >> made code for ended up not using it for similar reasons to "not enough >> windows developers". Nowadays I have very little time to spare. My >> method would work equally well for testing everywhere, not just on any >> one system, and I can help set it up, but would need help in actually >> creating the tests as I have not used llvm in depth enough to know how >> it is supposed to act and so forth, but I can help setup a testing >> framework if people would actually use it. > > If you were interested in working on this project, it seems that the > place to start is not by adding new crazy sorts of API tests for > LLVM. It would be a better use of your time to take what we already > have and make it work (with one of your proposals) on windows. When > the infrastructure is set up, others could add tests in areas that > they are knowledgeable about.I am not sure how well the current tests could be ported though, they are very gcc-centric, as in compile with llvm-gcc and execute what llvm-gcc compiled, not very useful as an api test. I have not really looked much into the current test setup once I noticed how useless it was for me, but is there a certain part of it that does not touch gcc type things, that literally just tests llvm directly without any middle stuff like llvm-gcc? If so, I could probably work on getting that into a more unified framework...
On Oct 11, 2008, at 8:41 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote:>> If you were interested in working on this project, it seems that the >> place to start is not by adding new crazy sorts of API tests for >> LLVM. It would be a better use of your time to take what we already >> have and make it work (with one of your proposals) on windows. When >> the infrastructure is set up, others could add tests in areas that >> they are knowledgeable about. > > I am not sure how well the current tests could be ported though, they > are very gcc-centric, as in compile with llvm-gcc and execute what > llvm-gcc compiled, not very useful as an api test. I have not really > looked much into the current test setup once I noticed how useless it > was for me, but is there a certain part of it that does not touch gcc > type things, that literally just tests llvm directly without any > middle stuff like llvm-gcc? If so, I could probably work on getting > that into a more unified framework...Are you talking about the test-suite SVN module? If so, I agree with you. It seems much more useful to start with the llvm/test subdirectory of unit tests. Those mostly don't depend on llvm-gcc and the few ones that do should be moved elsewhere anyway. -Chris