similar to: [LLVMdev] Role of DejaGNU?

I've finished adding the -rundejagnu option to the nightly tester script, which was the last step to fully support Dejagnu. I think now is the appropriate time to discuss keeping QMTest or switching to Dejagnu. A lot of work went into using QMTest, so I think we should make this decision carefully and before the 1.4 release. Here are the pros and cons in my eyes, please feel free to add your

Tanya Lattner wrote: > I've finished adding the -rundejagnu option to the nightly tester script, > which was the last step to fully support Dejagnu. I think now is the > appropriate time to discuss keeping QMTest or switching to Dejagnu. A lot > of work went into using QMTest, so I think we should make this decision > carefully and before the 1.4 release. > > Here are the

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 18, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: >> If you haven't already tried it, please consider switch to 'make >> check-lit' as an alternative to 'make check'. If it doesn't work for >> you, or you find it doesn't do something DejaGNU did and you like,

On Oct 18, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > If you haven't already tried it, please consider switch to 'make > check-lit' as an alternative to 'make check'. If it doesn't work for > you, or you find it doesn't do something DejaGNU did and you like, > please let me know. My eventual plan is to move to lit entirely and > drop DejaGNU support, so

On Oct 18, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > Hi all, > > As you may or may not have noticed, I have gradually been replacing > the testing infrastructure in LLVM. Most of this work is moving LLVM > and Clang to share a single testing tool, 'lit'. See: > http://llvm.org/cmds/lit.html > for documentation on the tool itself. > > If you haven't already

On Sunday 28 November 2004 00:24, Tanya Lattner wrote: Just some comments from a QMTest user... Note however, that even with them, dejagnu looks better. > Cons of QMTest: > 1) You have to use the gui to add directories. I think you're wrong. Manually creating a directory would work, as QMTest does not place anything special in directories. > 2) You have to use the gui to XFAIL

> > Cons of QMTest: > > 1) You have to use the gui to add directories. > > I think you're wrong. Manually creating a directory would work, as QMTest does > not place anything special in directories. I may have worded this poorly, but I think you have to use the gui to add new directories or tests, or specific tests. Otherwise, it does not know what to do with those

Hi all, As you may or may not have noticed, I have gradually been replacing the testing infrastructure in LLVM. Most of this work is moving LLVM and Clang to share a single testing tool, 'lit'. See: http://llvm.org/cmds/lit.html for documentation on the tool itself. If you haven't already tried it, please consider switch to 'make check-lit' as an alternative to 'make

On Oct 19, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >> >> Should be possible, although I don't know anything about the dejagnu >> feature. However, 'lit' has a reasonably complete shell and Tcl >> parser >> so it knows what commands are being called, so at least in theory it >> should be able to rewrite them. > > Interesting. Even less of

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > As you may or may not have noticed, I have gradually been replacing > the testing infrastructure in LLVM. Most of this work is moving LLVM > and Clang to share a single testing tool, 'lit'. See: >  http://llvm.org/cmds/lit.html > for documentation on the tool itself. >

I'm having troubles running the test suite on OS X 10.4. Inside my objdir, 'make check' gives this: % make check llvm[0]: Running test suite

Hi, We were wondering if *all* of the dejagnu tests should pass (in the sense that no result should be unexpected), because we have a few failed tests on our build. I will mail the summary once my current build is done.

Hi, I have some problem with running testsuites for samba. I use the dejaGNU 1.4.2 and latest 2.2.4 samba sources. What's wrong with my settings ? When I running runtest in testsuites directory I got: WARNING: Couldn't find the global config file. WARNING: No tool specified Test Run By eugene on Thu Jun 6 18:37:13 2002 Native configuration is sparc-sun-solaris2.8 ===

Hi all, This is just to announce that I have a FreeBSD x86 machine running the test suite more or less continuously: http://kinoko.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~builddonkey/ Of note is that it now runs Dejagnu tests. (Thanks, tonic+co!) I'm also tracking CVS breakage (internally, for now). At some later point, I'll make available more real-time information on "is CVS alive and if not,

> > Should be possible, although I don't know anything about the dejagnu > feature. However, 'lit' has a reasonably complete shell and Tcl parser > so it knows what commands are being called, so at least in theory it > should be able to rewrite them. Interesting. Even less of that would be just duplicating the functionality. At any rate everything looks quite nice.

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

> I'm asking for people (especially those running nightly testers) to give > Dejagnu a try. I will do. But last 2 days (after http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20041101/020279.html ) LLVM broken at FreeBSD: In file included from Path.cpp:27: platform/Path.cpp:26: error: no `bool llvm::sys::Path::isvalid() const' member function declared in class

Hi all, When using "make check" with the DejaGNU test collection, I encounter two unexpected failures (they seem to be closely related). My question: are they well known, and if so what's the problem and how can I fix it? This is the error text I get: FAIL: /var/data/common/trunk/llvm/test/FrontendC/2008-05-19-AlwaysInline.c Failed with exit(1) at line 1 while running:

The GCC DejaGNU testsuite has discovered some regressions. Here's one; this was reduced from testsuite/gcc.apple/4656532.c: typedef long long __m64 __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (8), __may_alias__)); static __inline __m64 __attribute__((__always_inline__, __nodebug__)) _mm_slli_si64 (__m64 __m, int __count) { } __m64 x, y; void t1(int n) { y = _mm_slli_si64(x, n); } Compiled with

Hi, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: >> We were wondering if *all* of the dejagnu tests should pass (in the >> sense that no result should be unexpected), because we have a few failed >> tests on our build. > > make check should always be clean. However, sometimes people do commit > changes that impact platforms they are not able to test on and we do have > the occasional