Displaying 20 results from an estimated 50000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Testing documentation and terminology"
2008 May 24
0
[LLVMdev] Testing documentation and terminology
On May 23, 2008, at 5:06 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as you might have seen, I just did some restructuring on the testing
> documentation. Since the changes are only documentation and mostly
> text
> movement, I took the liberty of committing without posting a patch
> first. Was
> that appropriate?.
Yep, if you consider it to be obvious, it can be
2008 Jun 24
1
[LLVMdev] Testing documentation and terminology
Hi All,
I've finally implemented my proposed changes to the testing documentation. I
think I fixed up the naming everywhere, but I did only a single pass over the
document, so I might have missed something. Review welcome :-)
It is now recommended to put the test suite in "projects/test-suite" instead
of "projects/llvm-test". I've also updated the configure script and
2008 May 24
1
[LLVMdev] Testing documentation and terminology
>
>
>> Currently, the first is called the "LLVM test suite" (which is the
>> subject of
>> the testing documentation). The second is called the DejaGNU tests,
>> code
>> fragment tests or llvm/test. The last one is the most confusing,
>> it's called
>> the whole program tests, test-suite (named after the svn directory
>> it is in,
2008 Jun 24
0
[LLVMdev] Testing documentation and terminology
Great!
To really finish this work, the nightly tester script needs to be updated.
Its currently full of llvm-test references. Would you be willing to modify
this as well?
Thanks,
Tanya
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've finally implemented my proposed changes to the testing documentation. I
> think I fixed up the naming everywhere, but I did only
2008 Sep 23
3
[LLVMdev] Overzealous PromoteCastOfAllocation
Hi Dan,
> Oh, ok. So code that takes an alloca, bitcasts the address to a higher
> alignment,
Since alignment is not a property of a type, I don't think you can "bitcast to
a higher alignment" as such. I still understand what you mean, though :-)
> and then does a load or store at the higher alignment, is
> invoking undefined behavior. The alignment attribute on a load
2008 May 07
4
[LLVMdev] Path to AutoRegen.sh
Hello, people
I'm developing a small code analysis project with LLVM (I hope I can
concentrate on it next semester and make it a really functional tool,
but, for now, it's an college end course project, and I'm more focused
on theoretical issues than on the implementation).
I'm using Ubuntu Linux and had a lot of trouble starting the project by
copping the "sample
2008 Jul 30
5
[LLVMdev] Is there room for another build system?
2 more roadblocks for Visual Studio users are the inability to compile gcc
and the inability to compile and run the test suite. I would not want to
submit a change unless I could still compile/run gcc and pass the test
suite. (Testing before submission is the way we do it where I come from - I
am assuming it's the same here).
On a related note, has anyone gotten the LLVM test suite working
2008 May 07
0
[LLVMdev] Path to AutoRegen.sh
Hi,
I think I have quite an identical patch lying around somewhere here, but I
thought that the AutoRegen.sh was something someone wrote here in-house, so I
never bothered to send it somewhere.
I do remember someone saying (on this list) one should really not use another
version of autoconf, but in my experience 2.6 works just as fine for building
an addon project (but perhaps not for rebuilding
2008 Sep 13
3
[LLVMdev] Overzealous PromoteCastOfAllocation
Hi Dan,
> Changing PromoteCastOfAllocation to not replace aggregate allocas with
> non-aggregate allocas if they have GEP users sounds reasonable to me.
This sounds reasonable indeed, but still a bit arbitrary. Haven't figured out
anything better yet, though.
> Finding the maximum alignment is sometimes still useful though, so
> it would be nice to update the alignment field of
2008 Nov 20
2
[LLVMdev] Validation Criteria
As we begin designing the proposed validation process, we should think about
what the criteria for a successful validation should be.
In the initial proposal I suggested the "make check" on llvm should pass as
should the tests in llvm-test.
According to Tanya, not all of llvm-test passes. Do we have a sense of how
far away from a full passing llvm-test we are?
I also know that a
2008 Sep 23
0
[LLVMdev] Overzealous PromoteCastOfAllocation
On Sep 23, 2008, at 4:16 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
>
>> and then does a load or store at the higher alignment, is
>> invoking undefined behavior. The alignment attribute on a load or
>> store
>> is an assertion about the actual alignment of the memory.
> Should this undefined behaviour be caught by the verifier, or is it
> ok for it
> to exist?
I
2007 Oct 12
1
[LLVMdev] .ll test cases for tail call optimization in test-suite
On 12 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
2008 Jul 30
2
[LLVMdev] Is there room for another build system?
Hi Kenneth,
If the LLVM project is switching to CMake, then CTest might be the framework of choice to use rather than scripting up something in Bash.
--Sam
--- On Wed, 7/30/08, Kenneth Boyd <zaimoni at zaimoni.com> wrote:
> From: Kenneth Boyd <zaimoni at zaimoni.com>
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there room for another build system?
> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing
2008 Jul 30
0
[LLVMdev] Is there room for another build system?
Jonathan Brumley wrote:
>
> 2 more roadblocks for Visual Studio users are the inability to compile
> gcc and the inability to compile and run the test suite. I would not
> want to submit a change unless I could still compile/run gcc and pass
> the test suite. (Testing before submission is the way we do it where
> I come from - I am assuming it's the same here).
>
2010 Sep 21
4
[LLVMdev] inline asm constraints examples/tests
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
2008 May 21
3
[LLVMdev] Using the test suite to benchmark patches
Hi,
just a quick email. I've been working on a patch to simplifycfg last week and
want to test its performance. I've ran the test-suite succesfully, both with
the patched and unpatched versions. However, I could find no easy way to
compare both results. I see that the web pages of the nightly tester provide
nice results (changes compared to the day before, together with percentages
and
2008 May 21
4
[LLVMdev] MultiSource/Applications/lemon slow in JIT
Hi,
I've been toying around with the testsuite for a bit, and after recompiling
llvm-gcc a bunch of times and fixing a nasty bashism bug, I actually got it to
run and pass most tests.
When running, I noticed a very long runtime on the lemon test. At first I
suspected an infinite loop, but it turned out the test simply needed around
1000 seconds to run. Some investigation turned out that the
2019 Aug 30
2
RFC: Adding GCC C Torture Suite to External Test Suites
TL;DR: I am proposing to add the GCC C Torture suite [1], as an additional external source of tests for the “nightly” test suite. If you are willing to review the patch, it is here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66887
Background:
While working on the RISC-V backend, we have found it useful to use additional test suites beyond the in-tree Clang and LLVM tests and the LLVM nightly tests, in order to
2005 Jan 09
2
[LLVMdev] make check fails on mingw
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:
make check VERBOSE=1
which gave me this:
------------------
if test -d "/C/projects/build/MinGW/llvm-2-1/test" ; then \
if test -f "/C/projects/build/MinGW/llvm-2-1/test/Makefile" ; then \
echo llvm[0]: Running test suite ; \
2008 Oct 11
9
[LLVMdev] 2.4 Pre-release (v1) Available for Testing
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Kenneth Boyd <zaimoni at zaimoni.com> wrote:
> At the absolute minimum, simple counting of the success/failure/internal
> error results requires three different exit codes, and a test driver
> capable of tallying them up and reporting all failures (unexpected
> success, unexpected failure, and internal errors with a designated
> distinct exit