similar to: New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9

>> ...snip... > > Also for a note of reference, your links to the examples are the > most advanced samples. So boost can do more, thus has more weight/ > bloat behind it. > > Were the other test kits looked at? Is gtest the best solution for > the project. > > Is this something your planning as putting in the tree, thus require > pulling in changes from

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

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 allow more careful testing of C++ APIs where the interesting part is the API itself.

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

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

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

2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > Is this something your planning as putting in the tree, >> thus require pulling in changes from google (license allowing), or does user >> need to have the libraries/headers pre-installed? >> > > Including it in the tree is the most reasonable thing to do. No point in > inconveniencing the user over tiny libraries

A long time ago I suggested that we might want to add gmock to compliment the facilities provided by gtest in LLVM's unittests. It didn't go over well: 1) There was concern over the benefit vs. the cost 2) Also concern about what the facilities would look like in practice and whether they would actually help 3) At the time, I didn't have good, large examples of what these things might

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

On 13/09/2018 18:22, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM Dávid Bolvanský via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/unittests/ExecutionEngine/Orc/CompileOnDemandLayerTest.cpp:79:40: >  required from here >

There is a new discussion related to -Wredundant-move warning on GCC bugzilla. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87300 pi 14. 9. 2018 o 9:53 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> napísal(a): > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:48 AM Stephan Bergmann <sbergman at redhat.com> > wrote: > >> On 13/09/2018 18:22, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: >>

> On Jan 4, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > TL;DR - I want this. For the most part, +1 from me too. A few comments though. > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:11 AM Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > ## Matchers > > To start off, it

Yes, we should produce this warning in C++11 mode too. (I could be misrecalling, but I think the rationale for the current behaviour is based on historical GCC behaviour.) On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, 10:04 David Blaikie via cfe-dev, < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Fair point made on that thread - that this is a DR, so technically the > std::move is pessimizing even in C++11 mode.

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

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 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 > >

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