similar to: [LLVMdev] Unit testing frameworks

Hi Talin, I just got around to looking at this. Sorry for the delay. I like the idea of unit tests *A LOT*. Adequate testing has been a major sticking point for LLVM for a long time. In my opinion, once the color of the bike shed is agreed upon ;-), this will be a welcome addition. I have never worked with Google's unit testing infrastucture so I don't know how it works or if its

On Dec 27, 2008, at 7:41 PM, Misha Brukman wrote: > 2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or a > different test suite? > I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar > with that. So I was wondering is one better then the other, or is it > just that someone makes a patch for

2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or > a different test suite? > I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar with that. > So I was wondering is one better then the other, or is it just that someone > makes a patch for it? > I looked more into Boost.Test to see what's in

Mark Kromis wrote: > On Dec 27, 2008, at 7:41 PM, Misha Brukman wrote: >> 2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> >> Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or a >> different test suite? >> I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar with >> that. So I was wondering is one better then the other, or is it

Talin wrote: > I've been using gtest (http://code.google.com/p/googletest/) for all of > my frontend unit tests and I'm very happy with it. It does all of that > automatic test discovery stuff pretty well. I haven't tried the XML test > report generation stuff, but it does have that capability. > Ok. > I don't know much about DejaGNU, and from what little I

So, any response on whether this patch is likely to be accepted? I'm willing to substantially rework things if requested. I should note that part of my motivation for doing this is that I have been wanting to do some work on the various LLVM container classes; However, I strongly feel that without some kind of unit test framework in place such work would mostly be a waste of time. Talin

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 >

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

+eugenis I see this while running 'check-msan'. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:10 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Is no one else seeing this? (I've been seeing it for a few days) > > In file included from > > /usr/local/google/home/blaikie/dev/llvm/src/utils/unittest/googletest/gtest-all.cc:39: > In file included from > >

Is no one else seeing this? (I've been seeing it for a few days) In file included from /usr/local/google/home/blaikie/dev/llvm/src/utils/unittest/googletest/gtest-all.cc:39: In file included from /usr/local/google/home/blaikie/dev/llvm/src/utils/unittest/googletest/include/gtest/gtest.h:57: In file included from

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

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 this is a great idea! As Keir already noted, I would also agree with LLVM

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

A recent change added defined(__linux__) condition to the code below. Now it says that on linux with --std=c++0x (or --std=c++11) the system stdlib.h header must define aligned_alloc(). Really? include/__config: #if ( defined(__FreeBSD__) || defined(__linux__) ) && (__ISO_C_VISIBLE >= 2011 || __cplusplus >= 201103L) #define _LIBCPP_HAS_QUICK_EXIT #define _LIBCPP_HAS_C11_FEATURES

Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or a different test suite? I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar with that. So I was wondering is one better then the other, or is it just that someone makes a patch for it? Regards Mark Kromis On Dec 27, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Keir Mierle wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Misha

+++ 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> >

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> 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

I?m wondering if what I have done is good : # get the source from github on my computer # autogen.sh # name=nut # ./configure --prefix=/ --sysconfdir=/etc/$name --mandir=/usr/share/man --libdir=/usr/lib --includedir=/usr/include --datadir=/usr/share/$name --with-statepath=/var/run/nut --with-altpidpath=/var/run/nut --with-drvpath=/lib/nut --with-pidpath=/var/run/$name

(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. Some notes about the patch: 1) For the testing framework, I went with Google Test, since it's the one I have the most experience with. I fully expect an extended

On Jul 31, 2013, at 9:07 AM, James HORLEY wrote: > I?m wondering if what I have done is good : > # get the source from github on my computer > # autogen.sh > # name=nut > # ./configure --prefix=/ --sysconfdir=/etc/$name --mandir=/usr/share/man > --libdir=/usr/lib --includedir=/usr/include --datadir=/usr/share/$name > --with-statepath=/var/run/nut