llvm dev - Nov 2007 - [LLVMdev] Problem with regression tests using stderr

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:01:25PM -0800, Bill Wendling
wrote:
> I think that it's a hold-over to how things used to be done. IIRC,  
> you had to have the && at the end of the RUN line if you had
another
> RUN line that needed to be executed. That's no longer the case, of  
> course.
Thanks. I'll remove the && from the one test that still has it then.

Then we can look at removing the associated code from llvm.exp and fixing
the bug. This will take a while though, at it exposes a large number of
failures that are currently hidden.
> If you want to catch stderr, there is one test doing that:
> 
> Analysis/ScalarEvolution/2007-07-15-NegativeStride.ll:
> 
> ; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -analyze -scalar-evolution 2>&1 | grep
> "Loop bb:  100 iterations"
2>&1 doesn't evoke the desired behavior; the RUN line is
unfortunately
interpreted by TCL rather than a regular shell. The llvm.exp bug has
allowed this and a variety of other common bourne-shell-isms to slip by
unnoticed.

Dan

-- 
Dan Gohman, Cray Inc.

Can you please file a bug for this (i havent seen one yet).

Thanks,
Tanya

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Dan Gohman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:01:25PM -0800, Bill Wendling wrote:
>> I think that it's a hold-over to how things used to be done. IIRC,
>> you had to have the && at the end of the RUN line if you had
another
>> RUN line that needed to be executed. That's no longer the case, of
>> course.
>
> Thanks. I'll remove the && from the one test that still has it
then.
>
> Then we can look at removing the associated code from llvm.exp and fixing
> the bug. This will take a while though, at it exposes a large number of
> failures that are currently hidden.
>
>> If you want to catch stderr, there is one test doing that:
>>
>> Analysis/ScalarEvolution/2007-07-15-NegativeStride.ll:
>>
>> ; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -analyze -scalar-evolution 2>&1 |
grep
>> "Loop bb:  100 iterations"
>
> 2>&1 doesn't evoke the desired behavior; the RUN line is
unfortunately
> interpreted by TCL rather than a regular shell. The llvm.exp bug has
> allowed this and a variety of other common bourne-shell-isms to slip by
> unnoticed.
>
> Dan
>
>

Ok, it's PR1826.

Dan

On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 05:15:38PM -0800, Tanya M. Lattner
wrote:
> 
> Can you please file a bug for this (i havent seen one yet).
> 
> Thanks,
> Tanya
> 
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Dan Gohman wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:01:25PM -0800, Bill Wendling wrote:
> >> I think that it's a hold-over to how things used to be done.
IIRC,
> >> you had to have the && at the end of the RUN line if you
had another
> >> RUN line that needed to be executed. That's no longer the
case, of
> >> course.
> >
> > Thanks. I'll remove the && from the one test that still
has it then.
> >
> > Then we can look at removing the associated code from llvm.exp and
fixing
> > the bug. This will take a while though, at it exposes a large number
of
> > failures that are currently hidden.
> >
> >> If you want to catch stderr, there is one test doing that:
> >>
> >> Analysis/ScalarEvolution/2007-07-15-NegativeStride.ll:
> >>
> >> ; RUN: llvm-as < %s | opt -analyze -scalar-evolution
2>&1 | grep
> >> "Loop bb:  100 iterations"
> >
> > 2>&1 doesn't evoke the desired behavior; the RUN line is
unfortunately
> > interpreted by TCL rather than a regular shell. The llvm.exp bug has
> > allowed this and a variety of other common bourne-shell-isms to slip
by
> > unnoticed.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >

-- 
Dan Gohman, Cray Inc.