search for: googlemock

...Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will > allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier > to maintain. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan of some features in > GoogleMock, but on the whole, I think it's better than the alternative and > will allow more careful testing of C++ APIs where the interesting part is > the API itself. > Emphatic +1 One of the major problems with unit testing (in general and in LLVM in particular) is that it's difficult to...

I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier to maintain. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan of some features in GoogleMock, but on the whole, I think it's better than the alternative and will allow more careful testing of C++ APIs where the interesting part is the API itself. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/2013...

...st.cpp:79:40: required from here /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/Orc/CompileOnDemandLayer.h:314:29: warning: redundant move in return statement [-Wredundant-move] 314 | return std::move(Err); In file included from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/utils/unittest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-spec-builders.h:75, from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/utils/unittest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h:43, from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/utils/unittest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock.h:61, fro...

...Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will > allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier > to maintain. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan of some features in > GoogleMock, but on the whole, I think it's better than the alternative and > will allow more careful testing of C++ APIs where the interesting part is > the API itself. > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu htt...

...t;chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > >> I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will >> allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier >> to maintain. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan of some features in >> GoogleMock, but on the whole, I think it's better than the alternative and >> will allow more careful testing of C++ APIs where the interesting part is >> the API itself. >> > > Emphatic +1 > > One of the major problems with unit testing (in general and in LLVM in > partic...

...3, at 7:04 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier to maintain. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan of some features in GoogleMock, but on the whole, I think it's better than the alternative and will allow more careful testing of C++ APIs where the interesting part is the API itself. Personally, I rather not do this, without very clear and compelling reasons. I understand that this could be very useful for your bringup (...

...th <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > > I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will > allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier > to maintain. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan of some features in > GoogleMock, but on the whole, I think it's better than the alternative and > will allow more careful testing of C++ APIs where the interesting part is > the API itself. > > Personally, I rather not do this, without very clear and compelling > reasons. > > I understand that this could...

On 13 Nov 2013, at 06:21, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > Keep in mind that I am a maintainer for gmock so this would not change the external project decencies of LLVM. Is gmock written with more portability in mind than gtest? In my experience, bringing up a new platform for gtest is a huge amount of pain (unless the code has been improved recently - I last tried

On 11/15/13 03:52 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > I'm not trying to make LLVM use unittests everywhere, I'm just trying > to get a tool added to the toolbox so that a unittest I'm already > writing can be written more simply and in a more maintainable fashion. You're welcome to ignore me and keep writing eloquent emails, but you still haven't shown an exact use

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > Could you maybe give an example or two to whet our testing appetite? It would honestly be simpler for me to write the tests after pulling it in and point at them. The GoogleMock project has some good examples as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131114/e97774d0/attachment.html>

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote: > This is probably most like #1, but i would either improve (or add a > verbose option to) -debug-pass=Structure. Then just write a test which > calls opt with some passes and uses FileCheck to verify the debug output. > Yes, but see the problems with it that I brought up. Note that the new pass

I'm sorry I even sent the original email. To be clear, I am trying to write some specific code, and gmock would make my life significantly easier. I'm not really trying to start or win a debate about how to write tests in LLVM. I think that debate should be held around tests, not around abstract libraries if it is even worth having at all. I am a big believer in giving people a powerful

> I think the cost of carrying it around is essentially zero. I'm happy to do > any of the maintenance. People who don't know how to use it or want to learn > how to use it don't need to use it. If it isn't making their job of writing > tests sufficiently easier to justify, then they don't use it. I see this as > a good pattern. That is not the case. If the test

...;wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > >> Could you maybe give an example or two to whet our testing appetite? > > > It would honestly be simpler for me to write the tests after pulling it in > and point at them. The GoogleMock project has some good examples as well. > Doesn't the entire operational behavior of the passmanager entirely boil down to the ordering of particular method invocations on passes (and that particular pieces of IR are passed between them)? It seems like it would be possible to print designat...

On Nov 14, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the cost of carrying it around is essentially zero. I'm happy to do > > any of the maintenance. People who don't know how to use it or want to learn > > how to use it don't

On 15 November 2013 04:38, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Right, validating my assertion that while TDD and unit testing are good in > general, they may not be right for LLVM. In LLVM, we have mature tests of > other sorts, as well as a strong process of review. > While I understand the value of TDD, I have to agree with Chris, here. I have been bitten by

On Nov 14, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Nov 14, 2013, at 3:16 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >> However, when we are adding interfaces or generic utilities to LLVM (admittedly, not the common case) I don't think we do

...ot really. I was just curious on why this test kit was picked. Thats all. > > One other nice feature of using gtest is that it integrates with > gmock, one of the only really good C++ mocking libraries available. > It was just recently released. > > http://code.google.com/p/googlemock > > Keir > > Just briefly looked at the googlemock site and it sys about needed tr1 library. Third paragraph in System Requirements. It just struck me as amusing that visual c++ people need boost then. I'll look into this more. Thank you for your kind explanations. Regards M...

On Nov 14, 2013, at 3:16 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > Personally, I rather not do this, without very clear and compelling reasons. > > I understand that this could be very useful for your bringup (and so could be very useful locally), but once the passmanager is the default, it will get lost of in-tree testing by just about everything in the compiler.

...th <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > > I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will > allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier > to maintain. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan of some features in > GoogleMock, but on the whole, I think it's better than the alternative and > will allow more careful testing of C++ APIs where the interesting part is > the API itself. > > Personally, I rather not do this, without very clear and compelling > reasons. > > I understand that this could...