search for: dejagnu

I've finished adding the -rundejagnu option to the nightly tester script, which was the last step to fully support Dejagnu. I think now is the appropriate time to discuss keeping QMTest or switching to Dejagnu. A lot of work went into using QMTest, so I think we should make this decision carefully and before the 1.4 release. Here are...

...tool, 'lit'. See: http://llvm.org/cmds/lit.html for documentation on the tool itself. If you haven't already tried it, please consider switch to 'make check-lit' as an alternative to 'make check'. If it doesn't work for you, or you find it doesn't do something DejaGNU did and you like, please let me know. My eventual plan is to move to lit entirely and drop DejaGNU support, so consider yourself warned. A couple key points about 'make check-lit': 1. It runs the unittests as well, there is no separate 'make unittests' step. If you like, there is...

Tanya Lattner wrote: > I've finished adding the -rundejagnu option to the nightly tester script, > which was the last step to fully support Dejagnu. I think now is the > appropriate time to discuss keeping QMTest or switching to Dejagnu. A lot > of work went into using QMTest, so I think we should make this decision > carefully and before the 1....

In an effort to simplify how tests are added to the LLVM testsuite, I've added support for Dejagnu. This only applies to the Feature and Regression tests. If this experiment goes well, we may switch from using QMTest to Dejagnu. I'm asking for people (especially those running nightly testers) to give Dejagnu a try. You will need to install Dejagnu (http://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/) whic...

...com> wrote: > On Oct 18, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: >> If you haven't already tried it, please consider switch to 'make >> check-lit' as an alternative to 'make check'. If it doesn't work for >> you, or you find it doesn't do something DejaGNU did and you like, >> please let me know. My eventual plan is to move to lit entirely and >> drop DejaGNU support, so consider yourself warned. > > I've swapped all of my testing to lit since all I do is native and it's been > great.  I'm definitely in favor of Chris...

On Oct 18, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > If you haven't already tried it, please consider switch to 'make > check-lit' as an alternative to 'make check'. If it doesn't work for > you, or you find it doesn't do something DejaGNU did and you like, > please let me know. My eventual plan is to move to lit entirely and > drop DejaGNU support, so consider yourself warned. I've swapped all of my testing to lit since all I do is native and it's been great. I'm definitely in favor of Chris's suggestion th...

On Sunday 28 November 2004 00:24, Tanya Lattner wrote: Just some comments from a QMTest user... Note however, that even with them, dejagnu looks better. > Cons of QMTest: > 1) You have to use the gui to add directories. I think you're wrong. Manually creating a directory would work, as QMTest does not place anything special in directories. > 2) You have to use the gui to XFAIL a test. Right. > 3) It uses somet...

...t; http://llvm.org/cmds/lit.html > for documentation on the tool itself. > > If you haven't already tried it, please consider switch to 'make > check-lit' as an alternative to 'make check'. If it doesn't work for > you, or you find it doesn't do something DejaGNU did and you like, > please let me know. My eventual plan is to move to lit entirely and > drop DejaGNU support, so consider yourself warned. This is great work Daniel, One question: Why not switch 'make check' to default to lit and offer 'make check-dejagnu' as a workaroun...

Hi, We were wondering if *all* of the dejagnu tests should pass (in the sense that no result should be unexpected), because we have a few failed tests on our build. I will mail the summary once my current build is done.

Well, doing a runtest in the test folder gave me these results: ----------------- WARNING: Couldn't find the global config file. WARNING: No tool specified Test Run By llvm on Fri Jan 7 20:55:24 2005 Native configuration is i686-pc-mingw32 === tests === ERROR: (DejaGnu) proc "exp_debug" does not exist. The error code is NONE The info on the error is: can't rename to "exp_tcl_continue": command already exists while executing "rename continue exp_tcl_continue" === Summary === ----------------- What is the global config f...

...5.21 \ /usr/local/bin/runtest WARNING: Couldn't find the global config file. WARNING: No tool specified Test Run By llvm on Sun Jan 9 00:50:59 2005 Native configuration is i686-pc-mingw32 === tests === Schedule of variations: unix Running target unix Using C:/MinGW/msys/local/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for target. Using C:/MinGW/msys/local/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target. WARNING: Couldn't find tool config file for unix, using default. === Summary === make[1]: Leaving directory `/C/projects/build/MinGW/llvm...

Thanks, Stuart. Sorry, I had some left-over editing cruft in my email. >From Googling runtest, I had found dejagnu, which I'd heard some folks were using over there, so I used the local package manager to install it. But from what you said I went ahead and got the dejagnu sources and built it, but had problems in running make install, which is trying to put it /usr/local/bin rather than /usr/bin like the p...

Hi, I have some problem with running testsuites for samba. I use the dejaGNU 1.4.2 and latest 2.2.4 samba sources. What's wrong with my settings ? When I running runtest in testsuites directory I got: WARNING: Couldn't find the global config file. WARNING: No tool specified Test Run By eugene on Thu Jun 6 18:37:13 2002 Native configuration is sparc-sun-solaris2....

...ny such output itself. This could be how we have written our python files.. but right now if you run a tool and it generates some output.. where that output is placed is not controlled. So it makes it difficult to clean up this intermediate output. > > I propose that we switch over to using dejagnu by default, renaming > > check-dejagnu to check, and deprecate QMTest. We can either remove qmtest > > for this release or keep it until 1.5. > > > > I'd appreciate your opinion or any feedback you may have. > > Looks like dejagnu is better for this task (though I...

...a runtest in the test folder gave me these results: > ----------------- > WARNING: Couldn't find the global config file. WARNING: No tool specified > Test Run By llvm on Fri Jan 7 20:55:24 2005 > Native configuration is i686-pc-mingw32 > > === tests === > > ERROR: (DejaGnu) proc "exp_debug" does not exist. The error code is NONE The > info on the error is: can't rename to "exp_tcl_continue": command already > exists while executing "rename continue exp_tcl_continue" > === Summary === > You are running a pretty o...

Can any one, who has dejagnu and expect installed and working, send me an output when running '(g)make check' from llvm. Thanks. Henrik. ============================================================= Henrik Bach LLVM Open Source Developer e-mail: henrik_bach_llvm at hotmail.com ===================================...

...k Bach wrote: > I found that it was runtest.exp which referenced to the internal exp_debug > function. For testing purposes I disabled the reference and ran a new: Hi Henrik, Unfortunately, none of us has access to a MinGW setup, so we cannot debug this problem. If you're hacking on dejagnu or expect itself (because it has not yet been ported to MinGW correctly or lacks features that we need on that host) you are outside of our area of our area of expertise. I suggest trying to dejagnu mailing list to see if anyone has run into this problem before. Thanks, -Chris > make che...

On Oct 19, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >> >> Should be possible, although I don't know anything about the dejagnu >> feature. However, 'lit' has a reasonably complete shell and Tcl >> parser >> so it knows what commands are being called, so at least in theory it >> should be able to rewrite them. > > Interesting. Even less of that would be just duplicating the > funct...

...t;  http://llvm.org/cmds/lit.html > for documentation on the tool itself. > > If you haven't already tried it, please consider switch to 'make > check-lit' as an alternative to 'make check'. If it doesn't work for > you, or you find it doesn't do something DejaGNU did and you like, > please let me know. My eventual plan is to move to lit entirely and > drop DejaGNU support, so consider yourself warned. > > A couple key points about 'make check-lit': >  1. It runs the unittests as well, there is no separate 'make > unittests'...

...Oct 2007, at 07:07, Evan Cheng wrote: >>In order to test the tail call optimization i created quite a few >>.ll files and added them to the SingleSource directory in the >>test-suite. For example >>llvm-test/SingleSource/Tailcall/tailcall1-2.ll. >Shouldn't these be dejagnu tests instead? There is one test in dejagnu that tests whether tail call optimization is performed when it should. And 2 tests that check handling of PIC. But with dejagnu i would not test whether the resulting .s code when compiled to an executable really runs. And with existing code in the test...