Jason Kim
2010-Sep-17 00:05 UTC
[LLVMdev] Need advise on adding tests - Was: Re: ARM MC .s status?
Hi everyone, I am trying to get up to speed on the MC object file emission for ARM, the first cut being for ELF, and the testing required for that. Obviously, we want the tests for the .o emission to ultimately test the entire .ll -> many llvm passes -> .bc -> .o, but as a first cut, my instinct tells me that a simple .cpp unit tests that directly invokes the MC code to generate (and self-check) the ARM ELF might be the way to go, but I am wondering where the best place for something like this is? I.e. From what I can tell, in the test-suite, even single file .c files are (according to the readme at least) are run as integration tests that compare llvm .bc / lli output to th eoutput of a native compile ... The testing document in llvm.org only talk about pretty heavy weight integration tests (Tcl + FileCheck, .cpp -> (many compilers ...) which is fine, but, but as a sanity check, I can't seem to find an example of a test.cpp file that invokes a certain subset of LLVM API, and self-checks the result - Or is the heavyweight "compile a .cpp file and cross check LLVM-clang's output to gcc" the only way something like this supported? Thanks, -Jason. -jason
Jason Kim
2010-Sep-17 00:30 UTC
[LLVMdev] Need advise on adding tests - Was: Re: ARM MC .s status?
Is the rationale that llvm has matured/advanced to the point where integration tests are the only ones to make sense from a test density perspective? On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> wrote:> Hi everyone, > > I am trying to get up to speed on the MC object file emission for ARM, > the first cut being for ELF, and the testing required for that. > > Obviously, we want the tests for the .o emission to ultimately test > the entire .ll -> many llvm passes -> .bc -> .o, but as a first cut, > my instinct tells me that a simple .cpp unit tests that directly > invokes the MC code to generate (and self-check) the ARM ELF might be > the way to go, but I am wondering where the best place for something > like this is? I.e. From what I can tell, in the test-suite, even > single file .c files are (according to the readme at least) are run as > integration tests that compare llvm .bc / lli output to th eoutput of > a native compile ... > > The testing document in llvm.org only talk about pretty heavy weight > integration tests (Tcl + FileCheck, .cpp -> (many compilers ...) > which is fine, but, but as a sanity check, I can't seem to find an > example of a test.cpp file that invokes a certain subset of LLVM API, > and self-checks the result - Or is the heavyweight "compile a .cpp > file and cross check LLVM-clang's output to gcc" the only way > something like this supported? > > Thanks, > > -Jason. > -jason >
Chris Lattner
2010-Sep-17 00:50 UTC
[LLVMdev] Need advise on adding tests - Was: Re: ARM MC .s status?
On Sep 16, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Jason Kim wrote:> Is the rationale that llvm has matured/advanced to the point where > integration tests are the only ones to make sense from a test density > perspective?We prefer unit tests based on decomposed command line tools in the llvm/test directory. These are simple to write, maintain, and understand/debug when something breaks. This approach works great for regression and simple feature tests. More elaborate things get put into other test suites. Is this what you mean? -Chris> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I am trying to get up to speed on the MC object file emission for ARM, >> the first cut being for ELF, and the testing required for that. >> >> Obviously, we want the tests for the .o emission to ultimately test >> the entire .ll -> many llvm passes -> .bc -> .o, but as a first cut, >> my instinct tells me that a simple .cpp unit tests that directly >> invokes the MC code to generate (and self-check) the ARM ELF might be >> the way to go, but I am wondering where the best place for something >> like this is? I.e. From what I can tell, in the test-suite, even >> single file .c files are (according to the readme at least) are run as >> integration tests that compare llvm .bc / lli output to th eoutput of >> a native compile ... >> >> The testing document in llvm.org only talk about pretty heavy weight >> integration tests (Tcl + FileCheck, .cpp -> (many compilers ...) >> which is fine, but, but as a sanity check, I can't seem to find an >> example of a test.cpp file that invokes a certain subset of LLVM API, >> and self-checks the result - Or is the heavyweight "compile a .cpp >> file and cross check LLVM-clang's output to gcc" the only way >> something like this supported? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Jason. >> -jason >> > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Daniel Dunbar
2010-Sep-17 07:10 UTC
[LLVMdev] Need advise on adding tests - Was: Re: ARM MC .s status?
We do tend to focus on the integration test style, but using our own tools which allow decomposing commands. Take a look at the tests in the tests/MC directory for examples of MC tests. Most tests are pretty lightweight, definitely much much lighter than .cpp -> .o. As far as ARM / MC goes, we are still just in the preliminary stages of getting things working. We have some instruction parsing support, still need substantial work on instruction matching, and still need substantial work in the encoder and backend. We also still need substantial work on the codegen side to MC'ize things. - Daniel On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> wrote:> Hi everyone, > > I am trying to get up to speed on the MC object file emission for ARM, > the first cut being for ELF, and the testing required for that. > > Obviously, we want the tests for the .o emission to ultimately test > the entire .ll -> many llvm passes -> .bc -> .o, but as a first cut, > my instinct tells me that a simple .cpp unit tests that directly > invokes the MC code to generate (and self-check) the ARM ELF might be > the way to go, but I am wondering where the best place for something > like this is? I.e. From what I can tell, in the test-suite, even > single file .c files are (according to the readme at least) are run as > integration tests that compare llvm .bc / lli output to th eoutput of > a native compile ... > > The testing document in llvm.org only talk about pretty heavy weight > integration tests (Tcl + FileCheck, .cpp -> (many compilers ...) > which is fine, but, but as a sanity check, I can't seem to find an > example of a test.cpp file that invokes a certain subset of LLVM API, > and self-checks the result - Or is the heavyweight "compile a .cpp > file and cross check LLVM-clang's output to gcc" the only way > something like this supported? > > Thanks, > > -Jason. > -jason > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
Rafael Espindola
2010-Sep-17 15:14 UTC
[LLVMdev] Need advise on adding tests - Was: Re: ARM MC .s status?
On 16 September 2010 20:30, Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> wrote:> Is the rationale that llvm has matured/advanced to the point where > integration tests are the only ones to make sense from a test density > perspective?Since you are working on producing .o files, I would suggest first getting llvm-mc to the point where it can produce some very basic .o files from a .s (maybe an empty .s?). With that you can start adding tests to test/MC/ELF and checking the output with elf-dump. Cheers, -- Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
Possibly Parallel Threads
- [LLVMdev] Need advise on adding tests - Was: Re: ARM MC .s status?
- [LLVMdev] ARM MC .s status?
- [LLVMdev] ARM MC .s status?
- [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] Fwd: Proof of concept patch for unifying the .s/ELF emission of .ARM.attributes
- [LLVMdev] ARM MC .s status?