similar to: [LLVMdev] Minix support in googletest

On 27 July 2011 11:20, dr. ir. Kees van Reeuwijk <reeuwijk at few.vu.nl> wrote: > At the time I submitted  those patches I also submitted them to googletest. As far as I know they got accepted, although I didn't verify that. OK, I see from this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/googletestframework/browse_thread/thread/3081a14965764366/332ce9869f4bbe31 ... that rather than add

Hello Jay, At the time I submitted those patches I also submitted them to googletest. As far as I know they got accepted, although I didn't verify that. I am no longer working on the Minix project, but since the Minix project is most definitely using llvm, I am cc:-ing this to the Minix developers mailing list. Perhaps they want to respond to this. -- Kees On 27 Jul 2011, at 11:43, Jay

Hi Jay, >> yes, they are annoying aren't they. They all come from google's unittest >> library. I think it is best to fix them upstream at google. > > We're using googletest 1.5.0. These warnings seem to be fixed in > 1.6.0, so here's a patch to upgrade us. Disclaimer: I've only tested > this by doing "make check-all" on Linux/x86_64. >

On 24 July 2011 10:59, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Edward, > >> Building of llvm with gcc-4.5.2-1 gives these warnings: >> >> 1) Building FileManagerTest >> >> "llvm[4]: Compiling FileManagerTest.cpp for Debug+Asserts build >> C:/Programming/VersionControl/llvm/tools/clang/unittests/Basic/FileManagerTest.cpp: >> In

All, Jay - and Kees -, thank you for notifying us of this move. Yes, as Kees wrote we certainly are using llvm/gtest, but are prepared to submit our changes to gtest directly if they haven't taken them yet. I'll take it up with my GSOC student, who is working on submitting many other minix-specific patches to maintainers of packages in our third-party package repository. =Ben

+Chandler who might have some thoughts on this. Could you provide an example here of the motivation for the feature you're missing? Might help motivate the discussion (and/or we'll end up nitpicking how it could be done differently without that feature... - which is sort of where I'm going with this. Combinatorial test case expansion does seem a bit suspicious to me - I'd hope we

Hi all, I'm currently writing some unit tests for some debug line error handling code I'm working on (see e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D44382), and I just ran into an annoying disabled feature in gtest, specifically the "Combine" feature for use in combinatorially generating parameterised tests. A FIXME comment in ProfileData\CoverageMappingTest.cpp suggests that I'm not

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:09 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > +Chandler who might have some thoughts on this. > > Could you provide an example here of the motivation for the feature you're > missing? Might help motivate the discussion (and/or we'll end up nitpicking > how it could be done differently without that feature... - which

Thanks. The motivating example can be seen in this review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44382. In that review, I am unit testing .debug_line parsing, specifically, the behaviour when the parser is fed a malformed section. Most of the code under test goes through some slight variations in the code path, depending on a) the DWARF version (interesting cases are 3, 4 and 5), and b) whether the DWARF is

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:10 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > +Chandler who might have some thoughts on this. > FWIW, I have no concerns about updating to a modern googletest. More modern the better IMO if someone is willing to do the work to make sure it works on all our platforms, etc. However: > Could you provide an example here of the

On 19 March 2018 at 19:56, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:10 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> +Chandler who might have some thoughts on this. >> > > FWIW, I have no concerns about updating to a modern googletest. More > modern the better IMO if someone is willing to do

> What is googletest ? Framework for units tests in llvm. http://code.google.com/p/googletest/ > Its aufully messy warnings wise on Cygwin. If you have gcc 3.X you are going to get a bunch of warnings. What gcc are you using? -Tanya

What is googletest ? Its aufully messy warnings wise on Cygwin. Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090219/8de0a211/attachment.html>

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:

Hi, The attached patch ensures that GetMainExecutable function in llvm-trunk/lib/System/Unix/Path.inc also works on Minix. I'm not sure it should be applied unmodified, because there may be controversial changes in it. In particular, one of the things it changes is this: - snprintf(buf, PATH_MAX, "%s//%s", dir, bin); + snprintf(buf, PATH_MAX, "%s/%s", dir, bin); in

Hello all, we are trying to convert some of the lldb tests to lit (for these specific tests we are using the googletest format). One of our requirements is that we are able to run these tests remotely, so that we are able to verify that we can debug e.g. android arm binaries even though our development environment runs x86 linux). As far as I am aware, right now there is no support for that in

Hi Paul, You added some support for Haiku to LLVM's copy of googletest: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=83823 http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=106620 Is it still being used? If so, would you mind pushing these patches upstream to the googletest project: http://code.google.com/p/googletest/ Otherwise we may drop them, because it makes it

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

I haven't scheduled time to investigate this yet. My guess is that GoogleTest config is getting confused on Microsoft vs POSIX mkdir when going through autoconf: llvm[3]: Compiling gtest-filepath.cc for Release-Asserts build g:\mingw32\bin\../lib/gcc/mingw32/4.2.1-dw2/../../../../include/io.h: In member function 'bool testing::internal::FilePath::CreateFolder() const':

$(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 |