llvm dev - Jan 2014 - [LLVMdev] New -O3 Performance tester - Use hardware to get reliable numbers

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
wrote:
> sean:~/pg/llvm/llvm % git log --oneline --since='1 month ago' | wc
-l
> 706
> sean:~/pg/llvm/llvm % git log --oneline --since='1 month ago'
./test | wc -l
> 317
Wouldn't this also catch commits to code generation that added tests as
well?


Diego.

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > sean:~/pg/llvm/llvm % git log --oneline --since='1 month ago'
| wc -l
> > 706
> > sean:~/pg/llvm/llvm % git log --oneline --since='1 month ago'
./test |
> wc -l
> > 317
>
> Wouldn't this also catch commits to code generation that added tests as
> well?
>
>
I'm not sure what you mean or how it would affect what I'm saying. Any
commit that affects code generation should include a test (there may be
some rare exceptions, but this is the general rule).

-- Sean Silva

>
> Diego.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140108/8c5b9dd9/attachment.html>

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at
google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > sean:~/pg/llvm/llvm % git log --oneline --since='1 month
ago' | wc -l
>> > 706
>> > sean:~/pg/llvm/llvm % git log --oneline --since='1 month
ago' ./test |
>> > wc -l
>> > 317
>>
>> Wouldn't this also catch commits to code generation that added
tests as
>> well?
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean or how it would affect what I'm saying.
Any
> commit that affects code generation should include a test (there may be
some
> rare exceptions, but this is the general rule).
If you pruned the commits that include directory ./test, won't that
prune the associated codegen patch as well? This would cause coverage
loss for the tester.

Or maybe I just did not understand what you were proposing :)


Diego.