llvm dev - Nov 2008 - [LLVMdev] Validating LLVM

> validation runs. That way you get the benefits of random testing
> without spurious changes in validation status dependent on randomly
> generated tests.
Sounds great.  I'm not trying to push random testing on people who don't
want it, but I think it is useful to the LLVM project and it's not clear 
that I have the resources to keep doing it myself indefinitely.

The tools are, I think, to the point where they can be pushed into an 
automated build/test loop, which is what I'm aiming for.  If this testing 
is done continuously and for several targets then more regressions can be 
squashed while they're fresh.

John Regehr

On Tuesday 11 November 2008 14:41, John Regehr wrote:
> > validation runs. That way you get the benefits of random testing
> > without spurious changes in validation status dependent on randomly
> > generated tests.
>
> Sounds great.  I'm not trying to push random testing on people who
don't
> want it, but I think it is useful to the LLVM project and it's not
clear
> that I have the resources to keep doing it myself indefinitely.
>
> The tools are, I think, to the point where they can be pushed into an
> automated build/test loop, which is what I'm aiming for.  If this
testing
> is done continuously and for several targets then more regressions can be
> squashed while they're fresh.
I think we're all in violent agreement here.

I absolutely see great value in random test generation.  I would support
some regular random testing and incorporating tests that trigger failures into 
the static LLVM testsuite.  This should be done on a regular basis.

                                                           -Dave

> I think we're all in violent agreement here.
Ok so basically I am volunteering to help someone integrate random testing 
into some kind of build/test loop :).

John Regehr