similar to: [LLVMdev] powerpc XFAIL question

To test some recent changes, I need to verify that seven instructions are generated. However, the order of those instructions doesn't matter (they are all independent loads from memory). Is there a way to tell FileCheck to reset its scan position rather than assuming all CHECK: instructions must be in the given order? My initial version of the test was to use -O0, attempting to ensure that

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Schmidt" <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:26:15 AM > Subject: [LLVMdev] Getting command line options to affect subtarget features > > The problem I'm trying to solve: Invoking clang on PowerPC with > -fno-altivec has no effect. > > From what

The problem I'm trying to solve: Invoking clang on PowerPC with -fno-altivec has no effect. >From what I've been able to piece together, PPC.td specifies various CPUs and the processor features available on each. So for example we have: def FeatureAltivec : SubtargetFeature<"altivec","HasAltivec", "true",

On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 11:29 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 11:23 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 10:17 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 09:42 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Bill Schmidt" <wschmidt at

On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 10:17 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 09:42 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Bill Schmidt" <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:26:15 AM > > > Subject: [LLVMdev] Getting command line

On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 09:42 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bill Schmidt" <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:26:15 AM > > Subject: [LLVMdev] Getting command line options to affect subtarget features > > > > The problem I'm trying to

To fix some problems with how condition registers are saved/restored for PowerPC, I need to override TargetRegisterInfo::hasReservedSpillSlot() in PPCRegisterInfo. I've had some difficulties because of the constness of the function, and I'm wondering what the best way to handle this would be. Essentially I need to add a field to PPCRegisterInfo, and modify that field in

On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 11:23 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 10:17 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 09:42 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Bill Schmidt" <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > > > Sent:

Hi, I am currently trying to set up new performance and regression testers for Polly and LLVM and would like to XFAIL two test cases. I am using the LNTBuilder instead of the NightlyTestBuilder out of the assumption that the LNTBuilder is the more modern solution. However, when trying to xfail test cases I realized the xfail=[] parameter of getLNTFactor is ignored. Previously this was not an

From http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html Some tests are known to fail. Some are bugs that we have not fixed yet; others are features that we haven't added yet (or may never add). In DejaGNU, the result for such tests will be XFAIL (eXpected FAILure). In this way, you can tell the difference between an expected and unexpected failure. The tests in the test suite have no such feature at

On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:44 PMPDT, Patrick Alexander Simmons wrote: > From http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html > > Some tests are known to fail. Some are bugs that we have not fixed > yet; > others are features that we haven't added yet (or may never add). In > DejaGNU, the result for such tests will be XFAIL (eXpected FAILure). > In > this way, you can tell the

Thanks, Dale, that really helps. What about disabling only one backend of a specific test? Thanks, --Patrick On 07/22/10 16:04, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:44 PMPDT, Patrick Alexander Simmons wrote: > >> From http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html >> >> Some tests are known to fail. Some are bugs that we have not fixed yet; >> others are

Hi, Currently, no tests that use lli without "-force-interpreter" are expected to pass when executing on an AArch64 model. However, they will pass if built and run on (say) X86, just setting the default target triple. So XFAIL gets unexpected passes on a compiler merely targetting AArch64 and leaving the tests as they are gives unexpected failures when they're run on a model. Does

Hi Kostya, Alex, Some changes in the sanitizers made this test start passing: TestCases/Posix/start-deactivated.cc http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-full/builds/4277 It passes on both ARM and Thumb, both NEON and non-NEON. Should we mark is as PASS now? Or is that a fluke? cheers, --renato

> > And in the test file there is a line: > > XFAIL: powerpc64, s390x, mips, sparc > > This is a crude attempt at "XFAIL: big-endian". The mips entry here is just > wrong if the system is little-endian - the test passes on little-endian machines > and fails on big-endian. This is obviously a problem. 'XFAIL: mips' counts as an XFAIL for all mips targets

If you can help get it working on big-endian systems, we should be able to remove the XFAIL. That seems like the cleanest way out of this. Yuchen sent a patch to llvm-commits on 12/19/13. (I can resend it to you if you don’t have that.) Can you try that out on a BE mips system? On Feb 21, 2014, at 7:11 AM, Reed Kotler <Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com> wrote: > On 02/21/2014 02:58 AM, Daniel

On Jul 25, 2010, at 2:37 AMPDT, Patrick Simmons wrote: > Thanks, Dale, that really helps. > > What about disabling only one backend of a specific test? > > Thanks, > --Patrick Not sure I understand, the test for Sparc in the example Makefile would appear to do that. You'll need to figure out a way to test for whatever condition you want to look at. There are lots of

I'm sorry; I should have been more clear. I mean, for instance, run a test but only with, say, llc, not with lli or cbackend. Thanks, --Patrick Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Jul 25, 2010, at 2:37 AMPDT, Patrick Simmons wrote: > >> Thanks, Dale, that really helps. >> >> What about disabling only one backend of a specific test? >> >> Thanks, >>

This may be an unpopular opinion (and I don’t have the full context on those specific issues), but I believe that these are an abuse of XFAIL, and should probably be written in terms of REQUIRES instead of XFAIL. I believe XFAIL tests actually execute, and are just marked as expected failure. If a test is not expected to ever succeed, we shouldn’t bother running it, which is what the REQUIRES

Hello LLVM-Dev, The other day as I was digging through lldb’s test suite I noticed they support something kinda neat. In their python test harness, the attribute they use to denote expected failures supports a parameter for specifying the bug number. This got me thinking. I believe that any test that is marked XFAIL is a bug, and we can use LIT to enforce that. So I wrote a patch