similar to: [LLVMdev] Any objections to my importing GoogleMock to go with GoogleTest in LLVM?

On Nov 12, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier to maintain. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan of some features in GoogleMock, but on the whole, I think it's better than the alternative and will

Keep in mind that I am a maintainer for gmock so this would not change the external project decencies of LLVM. On Nov 12, 2013 9:16 PM, "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 12, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > > I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will > allow

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will > allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier > to maintain. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan of some features in > GoogleMock, but on the whole, I think it's better than the

Writing a more thought-out reply.... On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 12, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > > I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will > allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier > to

On 13 Nov 2013, at 06:21, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > Keep in mind that I am a maintainer for gmock so this would not change the external project decencies of LLVM. Is gmock written with more portability in mind than gtest? In my experience, bringing up a new platform for gtest is a huge amount of pain (unless the code has been improved recently - I last tried

On Nov 14, 2013, at 3:16 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > Personally, I rather not do this, without very clear and compelling reasons. > > I understand that this could be very useful for your bringup (and so could be very useful locally), but once the passmanager is the default, it will get lost of in-tree testing by just about everything in the compiler.

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Nov 14, 2013, at 3:16 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > However, when we are adding interfaces or generic utilities to LLVM > (admittedly, not the common case) I don't think we do ourselves any favors > by using only half of the available tools to write

On 11/15/13 03:52 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > I'm not trying to make LLVM use unittests everywhere, I'm just trying > to get a tool added to the toolbox so that a unittest I'm already > writing can be written more simply and in a more maintainable fashion. You're welcome to ignore me and keep writing eloquent emails, but you still haven't shown an exact use

I don't really have a strong opinion, but it ended up being fairly controversial in Chromium: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-dev/-KH_IP0rIWQ It might occupy a space like GTest does for us today, which is used for things like Support where we often can't write a good lit test. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com>

Could you maybe give an example or two to whet our testing appetite? On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will > allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier > to maintain. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan of some features in

> I think the cost of carrying it around is essentially zero. I'm happy to do > any of the maintenance. People who don't know how to use it or want to learn > how to use it don't need to use it. If it isn't making their job of writing > tests sufficiently easier to justify, then they don't use it. I see this as > a good pattern. That is not the case. If the test

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the cost of carrying it around is essentially zero. I'm happy to > do > > any of the maintenance. People who don't know how to use it or want to > learn > > how to use it don't need to use it. If it isn't making their job of > writing > >

On Nov 14, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Nov 14, 2013, at 3:16 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >> However, when we are adding interfaces or generic utilities to LLVM (admittedly, not the common case) I don't think we do

On Nov 14, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the cost of carrying it around is essentially zero. I'm happy to do > > any of the maintenance. People who don't know how to use it or want to learn > > how to use it don't

On 15 November 2013 04:38, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Right, validating my assertion that while TDD and unit testing are good in > general, they may not be right for LLVM. In LLVM, we have mature tests of > other sorts, as well as a strong process of review. > While I understand the value of TDD, I have to agree with Chris, here. I have been bitten by

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote: > This is probably most like #1, but i would either improve (or add a > verbose option to) -debug-pass=Structure. Then just write a test which > calls opt with some passes and uses FileCheck to verify the debug output. > Yes, but see the problems with it that I brought up. Note that the new pass

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > Could you maybe give an example or two to whet our testing appetite? It would honestly be simpler for me to write the tests after pulling it in and point at them. The GoogleMock project has some good examples as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, GCC 9.0 introduces a new warning checkers and some of them found possible issues in LLVM. In file included from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/LazyCallGraph.h:38, from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/unittests/Analysis/LazyCallGraphTest.cpp:10: /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h: In instantiation of

I'm sorry I even sent the original email. To be clear, I am trying to write some specific code, and gmock would make my life significantly easier. I'm not really trying to start or win a debate about how to write tests in LLVM. I think that debate should be held around tests, not around abstract libraries if it is even worth having at all. I am a big believer in giving people a powerful

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> wrote: > > On Dec 27, 2008, at 7:41 PM, Misha Brukman wrote: > > 2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > >> 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