[LLVMdev] QMTest vs. Dejagnu

Tanya Lattner
Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:31:56 -0000

> > Cons of QMTest:
> >  1) You have to use the gui to add directories.
>
> I think you're wrong. Manually creating a directory would work, as
QMTest does
> not place anything special in directories.

I may have worded this poorly, but I think you have to use the gui to add
new directories or tests, or specific tests. Otherwise, it does not know
what to do with those files. I get lots of warnings/errors from QMTest
when it comes across a tests thats not in the database (says something
like "could not load test".

> >  5) Intermediate output placement can not be controlled.
>
> I don't understand this one. The intermediate output is placed where
tests
> want it to be placed; QMTest does not create any such output itself.

This could be how we have written our python files.. but right now if you
run a tool and it generates some output.. where that output is placed is
not controlled. So it makes it difficult to clean up this intermediate
output.

> > I propose that we switch over to using dejagnu by default, renaming
> > check-dejagnu to check, and deprecate QMTest. We can either remove
qmtest
> > for this release or keep it until 1.5.
> >
> > I'd appreciate your opinion or any feedback you may have.
>
> Looks like dejagnu is better for this task (though I always thought
it's some
> rusty tcl-based code). You might want to check on QMTest mailing list
first,
> in case they have some silver bullets at hand. After all QMTest was
supposed
> to test gcc, which is also cross-platform.

Thanks for your feedback!!!

-Tanya