similar to: [LLVMdev] [Patch] Adding unit tests to LLVM

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

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

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

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

On Dec 30, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Talin wrote: > OK changes made and new patch attached. Nice +++ 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. +VPATH = $(LLVM_SRC_ROOT)/utils/unittest/googletest/src/ Why play with VPATH here? What

I'm seeing some test failures for unit tests for msan (check-msan) happening in googletest, which I find weird. I'm on Arch Linux, with r342711. Below is one type of error that I see. The full log is 416MB (!) big. My guess is that those errors are related, but if anyone needs the full log, I'll provide it. Here is a reduced log from the end:

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

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

Current revision 285840 fails to build on FreeBSD. I used the command: cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" ../llvm -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/opt/llvm/current && gmake (I am aware of FreeBSD llvm/clang ports, but the source build should always succeed as well.) Yuri ---errors--- Scanning dependencies of target gtest [ 91%] Building CXX object

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

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

$(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 |

+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 > >

Hi folks, I'm using gcc 4.8.1 and I'm getting these warnings on every googletest file: src/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/include/gtest/gtest-typed-test.h:239:47: warning: anonymous variadic macros were introduced in C99 [-Wvariadic-macros] # define REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_CASE_P(CaseName, ...) \ ^ It seems a gtest infrastructure file, so maybe

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.

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. On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Dec 27, 2008, at 8:54 PM, Talin wrote: > > Although I haven't

Hello, It looks like compiler-rt CMake scripts don't take CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS into account. This is because clang_compile and clang_link_shared functions call the newly-built compiler directly, and they don't add those flags. Using CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS is necessary on systems where the C++11-enabled libstdc++ is installed not in the default location. For example, the CentOS buildbot uses:

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. I don't know much about DejaGNU, and from what little I know about it, I'm not sure its worth my

> On Jan 4, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > TL;DR - I want this. For the most part, +1 from me too. A few comments though. > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:11 AM Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > ## Matchers > > To start off, it

When building LLVM (trunk) on macOS (where there is no /usr/include/), the resulting Clang works fine for me when I add an appropriate -isysroot /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX.sdk to the command line when invoking Clang. (I'm not sure I'm using it as intended, but that appears to work reasonably well for me.) However, when