llvm dev - Jul 2018 - Separate test harness for LLVM test-suite

Dear community,

LLVM test-suite includes both default applications (benchmarks, tests) and test
harness (CMake modules, lit-support, some scripts, etc.). Test suite provides
extension interface to add "external" tests suite and folders. This
worked well, we enhanced basic harness and integrated large set of internal
benchmarks and applications.

However, we have users interested in LLVM test harness to build, profile, test
applications and experiment with tools/compilers without using applications from
full LLVM test-suite (~2,5 Gb).

Are there reasons why separation of test-suite into 1) basic test-harness and 2)
applications is undesirable or impossible?

We will be glad to hear opinions of community.

Best regards,
Elena Lepilkina,
Synopsys Corp, ARC processors

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180709/71074990/attachment.html>

If I understand correctly, you wish to put the the test-suite
framework (cmake/, litsupport/, litsupport-tests/, tools/, utils/)
into a different repository than the test sources (MultiSource/,
SingleSource, etc)?

Conceptually, the test framework (llvm-lit) is already separated,
living in the main LLVM repository. The build instructions (cmake
files) are hard to separate from the source files to compile.

I don't find that the External/ part works well. It was created for
licensing reasons, for proprietary source that cannot be included in
the repository. I have yet to successfully make any non-SPEC program
work. For instance, I cannot find the source of Povray that works with
test-suite's makefile/CMakeLists.txt

Michael




2018-07-09 2:26 GMT-05:00 Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
> Dear community,
>
>
>
> LLVM test-suite includes both default applications (benchmarks, tests) and
> test harness (CMake modules, lit-support, some scripts, etc.). Test suite
> provides extension interface to add “external” tests suite and folders.
This
> worked well, we enhanced basic harness and integrated large set of internal
> benchmarks and applications.
>
>
>
> However, we have users interested in LLVM test harness to build, profile,
> test applications and experiment with tools/compilers without using
> applications from full LLVM test-suite (~2,5 Gb).
>
>
>
> Are there reasons why separation of test-suite into 1) basic test-harness
> and 2) applications is undesirable or impossible?
>
>
>
> We will be glad to hear opinions of community.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Elena Lepilkina,
>
> Synopsys Corp, ARC processors
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

If this is mainly about size then I would rather propose to split the
"ABI-Testsuite" folder into a separate repository. With 1.5G it takes
up more space than the rest of the repository combined yet it is coneptually
independent of the rest of the testsuite and most people are not running it.

- Matthias
> On Jul 9, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> If I understand correctly, you wish to put the the test-suite
> framework (cmake/, litsupport/, litsupport-tests/, tools/, utils/)
> into a different repository than the test sources (MultiSource/,
> SingleSource, etc)?
> 
> Conceptually, the test framework (llvm-lit) is already separated,
> living in the main LLVM repository. The build instructions (cmake
> files) are hard to separate from the source files to compile.
> 
> I don't find that the External/ part works well. It was created for
> licensing reasons, for proprietary source that cannot be included in
> the repository. I have yet to successfully make any non-SPEC program
> work. For instance, I cannot find the source of Povray that works with
> test-suite's makefile/CMakeLists.txt
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2018-07-09 2:26 GMT-05:00 Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
>> Dear community,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> LLVM test-suite includes both default applications (benchmarks, tests)
and
>> test harness (CMake modules, lit-support, some scripts, etc.). Test
suite
>> provides extension interface to add “external” tests suite and folders.
This
>> worked well, we enhanced basic harness and integrated large set of
internal
>> benchmarks and applications.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> However, we have users interested in LLVM test harness to build,
profile,
>> test applications and experiment with tools/compilers without using
>> applications from full LLVM test-suite (~2,5 Gb).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Are there reasons why separation of test-suite into 1) basic
test-harness
>> and 2) applications is undesirable or impossible?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> We will be glad to hear opinions of community.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Elena Lepilkina,
>> 
>> Synopsys Corp, ARC processors
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Dear community,
>
>
>
> LLVM test-suite includes both default applications (benchmarks, tests) and
> test harness (CMake modules, lit-support, some scripts, etc.). Test suite
> provides extension interface to add “external” tests suite and folders.
This
> worked well, we enhanced basic harness and integrated large set of internal
> benchmarks and applications.
>
>
>
> However, we have users interested in LLVM test harness to build, profile,
> test applications and experiment with tools/compilers without using
> applications from full LLVM test-suite (~2,5 Gb).
>
>
>
> Are there reasons why separation of test-suite into 1) basic test-harness
> and 2) applications is undesirable or impossible?
I would like to cautiously +1 this question.

I've been personally eyeing using LNT for personal benchmarking needs,
but so far did not get to it. There seems to be no good docs (with examples!)
on how to actually write an external lnt test producer, which is understandable,
and the test-suite itself is rather tightly coupled with the LLVM.

Thus i too think that such a split into the supporting framework,
and all the actual benchmarks *may* be a good thing.
Or at least i would love to see some good docs.
> We will be glad to hear opinions of community.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Elena Lepilkina,
Roman.
> Synopsys Corp, ARC processors
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

> On Jul 9, 2018, at 10:55 AM, Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Elena Lepilkina via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> Dear community,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> LLVM test-suite includes both default applications (benchmarks, tests)
and
>> test harness (CMake modules, lit-support, some scripts, etc.). Test
suite
>> provides extension interface to add “external” tests suite and folders.
This
>> worked well, we enhanced basic harness and integrated large set of
internal
>> benchmarks and applications.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> However, we have users interested in LLVM test harness to build,
profile,
>> test applications and experiment with tools/compilers without using
>> applications from full LLVM test-suite (~2,5 Gb).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Are there reasons why separation of test-suite into 1) basic
test-harness
>> and 2) applications is undesirable or impossible?
> I would like to cautiously +1 this question.
> 
> I've been personally eyeing using LNT for personal benchmarking needs,
> but so far did not get to it. There seems to be no good docs (with
examples!)
> on how to actually write an external lnt test producer, which is
understandable,
> and the test-suite itself is rather tightly coupled with the LLVM.
Note that you do not need LNT to run benchmarks. LNT is good for storing and
tracking benchmark results over time. For simple A/B tests you are usually
better of just running llvm-testsuite directly via cmake.

Thanks to Chris there is some introduction about it here:
http://llvm.org/docs/TestSuiteMakefileGuide.html#running-the-test-suite-via-cmake
<http://llvm.org/docs/TestSuiteMakefileGuide.html#running-the-test-suite-via-cmake>

You can conveniently view the results via test-suite/results/compare.py

llvm-testsuites cmake files are also designed to be extensible. Unfortunately
this is not separately documented yet (the 1 sentence explanation is: Create a
folder and write your own CMakeLists.txt and point TEST_SUITE_SUBDIRS to it at
cmake time).

I'd be happy to answer any questions in the area; I'd also highly
apreciate it if someone wanted to contribute to LLVM by writing the missing
documentation ;-)
> 
> Thus i too think that such a split into the supporting framework,
> and all the actual benchmarks *may* be a good thing.
> Or at least i would love to see some good docs.
The driving code is already modular and you can mix and match testsuite (the
included ones or by writing external ones) by setting TEST_SUITE_SUBDIRS. We
successfully use this for some additional test-suite modes like CTMark or the
new MicroBenchmarks; we also have some internal test-suite here that now plug
into this system. This is good software design and we should make sure it stays
the way it is.

Regardless I would vote to not split things up: The situation actually feels
similar to the mono-repository vs. multi-repository debate we have on the
clang/llvm/compiler-rt/... side. My take here would be that things that are
usually shipped or used as a unit should stay in the same repository. If you end
up in a situation where you often have to synchronize commits across
repositories things become more complicated and development slows down. My
impression is that the test-suite driver and the core test-suite is in the
majority of cases used together, indicating to me that it is benefitial to keep
them in the same repository.

- Matthias
> 
>> We will be glad to hear opinions of community.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Elena Lepilkina,
> Roman.
> 
>> Synopsys Corp, ARC processors
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180709/78f96624/attachment.html>