similar to: extra package tests directory

During installation of a package, Makevars/Makefile in src/ is processed. I've always considered the purpose of this for compiling native code. Is that it's solely purpose, or is it alright to use it also for non-code compilation purposes, e.g. building inst/ subdirectories on the fly? If not, are there other means to create non-static inst/ subdirectories during installation? The

--- extratests/Makefile.am | 8 ++++++-- 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/extratests/Makefile.am b/extratests/Makefile.am index bf6b3f9..519d0b9 100644 --- a/extratests/Makefile.am +++ b/extratests/Makefile.am @@ -52,12 +52,16 @@ EXTRA_DIST = suppressions +VG_FIFO=$(abs_builddir)/valgrind.fifo +VG_LOG=$(abs_builddir)/valgrind.log VG = valgrind \ -

$(llvm-config --libs | tr " " "\n" | grep gtest) returns: -lgtest_main -lgtest instead of non-valid: -lLLVMgtest_main -lLLVMgtest It also fixes: $(ld): cannot find -lLLVMgtest $(ld): cannot find -lLLVMgtest_main --- unittests/Makefile.unittest | 2 +- utils/llvm-build/llvmbuild/componentinfo.py | 4 ++-- utils/llvm-build/llvmbuild/main.py |

OK changes made and new patch attached. Comments below: On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> wrote: > +++ unittests/TestMain.cpp (revision 0) > +//===--- unittest.cpp - unittest driver > -----------------------------------===// > > +++ unittests/ADT/DenseMapTest.cpp (revision 0) > +//===- llvm/unittest/DenseMapMap.h - DenseMap unit

+++ unittests/TestMain.cpp (revision 0) +//===--- unittest.cpp - unittest driver -----------------------------------===// +++ unittests/ADT/DenseMapTest.cpp (revision 0) +//===- llvm/unittest/DenseMapMap.h - DenseMap unit tests --------*- C++ -*-===// You probably want to update these file headers to match their real names. 2008/12/30 Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> >

2008/12/30 Talin <viridia at gmail.com> > Here's the version of the unit test patch, incorporating the feedback I > have received so far. > Looks good, a few comments below. > Some notes on the patch: > > - This patch doesn't include googletest itself, that will need to be > checked in separately. The source distribution will live in >

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> wrote: > 2008/12/29 Talin <viridia at gmail.com> > >> Do the existing tests use a wildcard rule to gather all test sources? We >> would need to insure that the wildcard rule for the unit tests and the large >> tests are mutually exclusive. >> > > By "large tests", I

Here's the version of the unit test patch, incorporating the feedback I have received so far. Some notes on the patch: - This patch doesn't include googletest itself, that will need to be checked in separately. The source distribution will live in llvm/utils/unittest/googletest. (The reason for the extra directory level is so that the LLVM-specific makefiles can live in

Hello, GCC 9.0 introduces a new warning checkers and some of them found possible issues in LLVM. In file included from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/LazyCallGraph.h:38, from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/unittests/Analysis/LazyCallGraphTest.cpp:10: /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h: In instantiation of

--- extratests/suppressions | 20 ++++++++++++++++---- 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/extratests/suppressions b/extratests/suppressions index 97d4b78..78ca4ab 100644 --- a/extratests/suppressions +++ b/extratests/suppressions @@ -3,19 +3,19 @@ Memcheck:Cond fun:* fun:numa_node_size64 - fun:numa_init + obj:/usr/lib64/libnuma.so.1 } {

This additional patch enables "make unittests" on enable-shared/mingw. (still unittests would fail in some points. see also my other patches) It is intended to apply with previous r110016-shlib-dll-2.diff.txt. Thank you in advance...Takumi -------------- next part -------------- diff --git a/unittests/Makefile.unittest b/unittests/Makefile.unittest index 2a701a0..9a75b2c 100644 ---

On 30 June 2014 16:16, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I think you are hitting a bug, the Observer pattern was added a few weeks > back, and may be there is some sort of uninitialized variable ? This is my back-trace at "-O2 -g" (since -O1 pass): operator() (file=<optimized out>, __closure=0x7fffffffde40) at

Hi! I appologize for crossposting, but this might be of broader interest. In case you are interested in fusing RUnit with R CMD check under unix alike OS, here is one way of doing/hacking this. My aim was to perform unit tests: (1) during R CMD check (2) at any other time Say you have a package PKG in a map PKG. I use the following structure PKG |- R |- ... |- inst | |- doc | `-

2008/12/31 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > On Dec 30, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Talin wrote: > > OK changes made and new patch attached. > > +++ utils/unittest/Makefile (revision 0) > > ... > +# This has to come after Makefile.common, since it doesn't allow us to > +# override the VPATH value unless we set PROJECT_NAME, which we don't want > +# to do.

2008/12/29 Talin <viridia at gmail.com> > I'm working on an update to the patch. The only thing holding me up is > trying to come to a final decision as to where all the various pieces should > live. Specifically, the Google Test library, and the actual unit tests > themselves. I would recommend putting Google Test in llvm/test/googletest . The unittests should probably

Misha Brukman wrote: > On Dec 22, 7:34 pm, Talin <viri... at gmail.com> wrote: > >> (Forwarding this to llvm-dev) >> >> This patch adds a unit test framework to LLVM, along with a sample unit test >> for DenseMap. I don't expect this patch to be accepted as-is, this is mainly >> a trial balloon and proof of concept. >> > > I think

Hooray! I'm thinking that getting unit tests for the classes in ADT should be an early goal. I also wanted to mention a point about the general philosophy of unit testing, which is that the presence of such tests alters the calculation of risk when making changes to a code base. Programmers have various rules of thumb for estimating risk - for example, a change which affects a large

Hello, Since 2.5 is near, I have been trying to build llvm and llvm-gcc for MingW, but hit several problem (using the current trunk). First issue is that unittests don't build for MingW, the attached patch should fix it. Second issue is that llvm-gcc fails for me with the following error: /c/cygwin/home/jlerouge/buildbot/llvm-test/gcc-build/./gcc/xgcc

Do the existing tests use a wildcard rule to gather all test sources? We would need to insure that the wildcard rule for the unit tests and the large tests are mutually exclusive. Also, will the unit tests be one executable or many? They will probably compile/run faster if there is a smaller number of executables. On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> wrote:

Duncan, I'm tracking down an infinite recursion problem when calling toInt. The problem seems to be that in the call to toInt, we call compareTo which, in turn, calls toInt in one of its paths. This does not happens on 64bit Scaled numbers. I'm trying to work out a fix, but maybe you'll spot the problem quicker. Here's a unittest that triggers the problem. I ran into it with