On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:> Chris Lattner wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>>> many thanks once more for your quick fix for this issue. Actually
the
>>> current CVS version is the first version since llvm-1.3 which does
not
>>> miscompile the UCL library, so this is a definitive improvement
:-). And
>>> getting famliar with bugpoint should help me tracking down possible
>>> problems much more easily in the future.
>>
>>
>> Uhm, that's bad. Would it be possible to add it as a test program
in our
>> llvm-test suite?
>
> Well, as I said the current CVS version works fine, so this is good news.
The
> critical bugs that affected UCL miscompilation were PR491, PR548 and PR555,
> all of which are fixed now.
That's definitely good, but it seems like UCL is very good at exposing
bugs in LLVM. :) To avoid this happening in the future, could you put
together a simple test (like you are using to check for correctness) that
we can use to test the compiler?
As a bonus, this will also be used for performance tracking, so LLVM would
be more likely to compile your code to a faster result if its in our
testsuite. :)
To add it to our suite, I basically need the following:
1. All of the source files in one directory
2. A list of compiler flags to build with
3. Any input files
4. Instructions on how to run the program.
We're always looking for new interesting test cases :)
-Chris
--
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/