similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] A "very verbose" mode for FileCheck

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >>>

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >>>>

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> When someone breaks a FileCheck-based test on some buildbot, sometimes >> it may not be obvious *why* did it fail. If the failure can not be >> reproduced locally, it can

On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > When someone breaks a FileCheck-based test on some buildbot, sometimes > it may not be obvious *why* did it fail. If the failure can not be > reproduced locally, it can be very hard to fix. > > I propose adding a "very verbose" mode to FileCheck. In this mode >

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Evgeniy Stepanov > <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> When someone breaks a FileCheck-based test on some buildbot,

Note that as far as places to put temporary files, the right place to put them is alongside the other test outputs in the test output "sandbox" directory. Somewhat orthogonal, but we should also fix up lit to purge those sandboxes before it starts a new test run. - Daniel On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > Note that as far as places to put temporary files, the right place to put > them is alongside the other test outputs in the test output "sandbox" > directory. > > Somewhat orthogonal, but we should also fix up lit to purge those sandboxes > before it starts a new test run. SGTM -

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > > Note that as far as places to put temporary files, the right place to put > > them is alongside the other test outputs in the test output "sandbox" > > directory. > > > > Somewhat

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >> > Note that as far as places to put temporary files, the right place to >> > put >> > them is

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > When someone breaks a FileCheck-based test on some buildbot, sometimes > it may not be obvious *why* did it fail. If the failure can not be > reproduced locally, it can be very hard to fix. > > I propose adding a "very verbose" mode to FileCheck. In this mode >

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > We have to options: > (a) replace 'FileCheck' with '%FileCheck' in all tests, and teach > 'lit' to replace '%FileCheck' with 'FileCheck --dump-input-on-error'; > > (b) teach 'lit' to replace a plain 'FileCheck'. > > The first approach

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >> We have to options: >> (a) replace 'FileCheck' with '%FileCheck' in all tests, and teach >> 'lit' to replace '%FileCheck' with 'FileCheck --dump-input-on-error';

On Jan 17, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >>> We have to options: >>> (a) replace 'FileCheck' with '%FileCheck' in all tests, and teach

On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:19 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >> I agree that a command line option would be better. But in that case >> all tests should be updated. It is not an issue for me -- it is >> mostly mechanical. So should I change tests to use %FileCheck? > > Here's a third attempt. Thanks in advance for driving this forward.

On Jan 17, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Jan 17, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: >>>> On Thu,

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:19 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >>> I agree that a command line option would be better. But in that case >>> all tests should be updated. It is not an issue for me -- it is >>> mostly mechanical. So should I change tests to use

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 17, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >>>

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> We have to

The following failures are consistent on buildbot (and my local box). The Clang one I think it's assuming an Intel box, the other two look like the FileCheck are not good enough. http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9/builds/4305 Clang :: CodeGen/compound-assign-overflow.c LLVM :: Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/post-inc-icmpzero.ll LLVM ::