llvm dev - Jan 2014 - [LLVMdev] [lld] Using llvm-mc in lld test suite

Hi,

Is it OK to use llvm-mc in the lld test suite?

I do not want to maintain assembler, object and test files for small
MIPS target related test. Instead of that I prefer to keep a single
test file with assembler code and test suite instructions. Is it
acceptable way?

-- 
Simon Atanasyan

Hi Simon,

We have been converting object files to yaml files and using that as 
inputs. PECOFF uses obj2coff for some of the tests. I think llvm-mc 
should also work, I am not sure if there is a difference in terms of 
functionality in the Mips integrated assembler compared to llvm-mc ?

Thanks

Shankar Easwaran

On 1/10/2014 1:47 AM, Simon Atanasyan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it OK to use llvm-mc in the lld test suite?
>
> I do not want to maintain assembler, object and test files for small
> MIPS target related test. Instead of that I prefer to keep a single
> test file with assembler code and test suite instructions. Is it
> acceptable way?
>

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the
Linux Foundation

On Jan 10, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>
wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> We have been converting object files to yaml files and using that as
inputs. PECOFF uses obj2coff for some of the tests. I think llvm-mc should also
work, I am not sure if there is a difference in terms of functionality in the
Mips integrated assembler compared to llvm-mc ?
> 
If there is, that’s a really bad bug in one or the other. The primary intended
use of llvm-mc is for testing the integrated assembler without having to call
clang.

-Jim
> Thanks
> 
> Shankar Easwaran
> 
> On 1/10/2014 1:47 AM, Simon Atanasyan wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Is it OK to use llvm-mc in the lld test suite?
>> 
>> I do not want to maintain assembler, object and test files for small
>> MIPS target related test. Instead of that I prefer to keep a single
>> test file with assembler code and test suite instructions. Is it
>> acceptable way?
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted
by the Linux Foundation
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

Hi Shankar,

Thanks for the answer. Ideally, there should be no difference between
Mips integrated assembler and llvm-mc. In fact, as far as I know, the
small difference exists. Some pragmas are implemented in the
integrated assembler and are not implemented in llvm-mc. Fortunately
that does not affect lld testing.

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Shankar Easwaran
<shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> We have been converting object files to yaml files and using that as
inputs.
> PECOFF uses obj2coff for some of the tests. I think llvm-mc should also
> work, I am not sure if there is a difference in terms of functionality in
> the Mips integrated assembler compared to llvm-mc ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Shankar Easwaran
>
>
> On 1/10/2014 1:47 AM, Simon Atanasyan wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is it OK to use llvm-mc in the lld test suite?
>>
>> I do not want to maintain assembler, object and test files for small
>> MIPS target related test. Instead of that I prefer to keep a single
>> test file with assembler code and test suite instructions. Is it
>> acceptable way?
-- 
Simon Atanasyan