similar to: Is ist a good idea to use lit and other test tools for non llvm projects?

On 2019-01-24 20:17, David Greene via llvm-dev wrote: > alexp via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > >> I have a project which uses llvm, but is (at least not yet) a >> contribution / not in the source tree of llvm. >> Is it a good idea (e.g. instead of using boost test framework) to use >> the llvm testsuite related tools in this case? > >

Hi, I use llvm-lit in my own project. Works fine so far. However, executing the tests, I get output directories which are empty. Whats the role of them? I could not find any hint in the docu. I was expecting that e.g. for RUN: X, the output of X would be located there. I can use RUN: X > log, then I get a log file right besides the test file, and not in oputput. Where can I find more docu

So I manage to get clang's colored output through ninja simply by force (CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS=-fcolor-diagnostics), which isn't ideal (if I were to pipe ninja's output to a file it'd still have color escapes, etc) but it works. But I haven't found a similar solution for FileCheck & I'm wondering has anyone already solved this problem for themselves - if so, how? if not,

I just want to update test/Transforms/LowerSwitch/feature.ll that already uses grep. It uses grep + count, probably due to shorter construction. -Stepan. Eric Christopher wrote: > > On May 24, 2012, at 12:12 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: > >> Hi all. I found that if you want to use grep with escape characters in >> lit, you should pass it within the double slash (\\). Since

Is there a way to do this with llvm-lit, i.e., use the equivalent of backticks? foo takes a single argument, but doesn't read from stdin. // RUN foo some_arg > %t; FileCheck %s < %t // RUN foo `cat %t` | FileCheck --check-prefix=INVERSE // CHECK: {{^[0-9]+$}} // INVERSE: some_arg thanks... don -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

How can I platform-conditionally compile/check sections of code with lit? Can I rely on preprocessor defines like _WIN32? Specifically, I'm adding new tests to existing lit tests, but the new tests should only be compiled and run on Windows. Sincerely, Alexander Riccio -- "Change the world or go home." about.me/ariccio <http://about.me/ariccio> If left to my own devices, I

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru>wrote: > I just want to update test/Transforms/LowerSwitch/feature.ll that > already uses grep. > It uses grep + count, probably due to shorter construction. > If you are touching such a test, please convert it to FileCheck. Use of 'grep' in tests is an endless source of problems, and we are

Hi all, quite a few tests use the pattern "2>&1 | FileCheck %s". AFAIK how stdout and stderr are merged into a single character stream is undefined and depends e.g. on whether stdout is buffered. I think we are often saved by the fact that standard output is written only at the end of the program and stderr is unbuffered, i.e. always written before stdout. A lot of tests disable

llvm-lit is already put into <output-tree>/bin by CMake. There is a CMake target called `llvm-lit` that will generate the <output-dir>/bin/llvm-lit script. If you built only a few specific llvm targets such as FileCheck, etc then you may need to run this lit target manually. If you just run "ninja" for example, or "ninja check-llvm", it's automatically

Tim Northover via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Hi Varun, > > I'm definitely in favour of making -v more useful like this. > > On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 19:31, Varun Gandhi via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Option 2 (less deviation from status quo): >> -v: Adopts behavior of -vvv from Option 1. :) >> -vv: Same

Hi all, Can anybody give a tutorial about how to use llvm-lit tool? I copy and revise Makefile and lit.cfg etc from clang to my project. However, when I run make test it always seem unable to find the FileCheck tool correctly. How can I fix it? Can anybody add test feature to llvm/project/sample? Thanks in advance! best, Yabin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi all, I've got https://reviews.llvm.org/D37756 up for review currently which simplifies a lot of the logic in our lit config files. For most people, this will be completely transparent and "just work", but it breaks one workflow that people should be aware of. Problem: If you run lit by putting llvm-config in your path and then running <source-root>/utils/lit/lit.py

Hi all. I found that if you want to use grep with escape characters in lit, you should pass it within the double slash (\\). Since the first one is captured by python scripts and the second one by grep. E.g. if you want to capture "grep icmp ule" you should pass "grep icmp\\ ule" So I'm going to commit the test with strings like this. How stable this feature in lit?

Hi, I was wondering if there is a way with llvm-lit and FileCheck to identify if a specific test should run or not based on the processor architecture. For example, I have a test that can run only in an Intel KNL, so if I run the tests in a Sandybridge I want to ignore that test. Any idea? Thanks! Simone ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This

Hi, I am observing a deadlock with llvm-lit on windows 7. When I attached a debugger, the communicate() call is blocked. In file utils/lit/lit/TestRunner.py > # FIXME: There is probably still deadlock potential here. Yawn. > procData = [None] * len(procs) > procData[-1] = procs[-1].communicate() I am invoking python directly on windows to run the unit tests.

Wang, Attachment is a simple example, you may put it in test/CodeGen, and run with llvm-lit C90 It worked ok in my llvm 3.2 devel. Let know if you run into any trouble. Regards. 2012/8/27 Changcheng Wang <changcheng at multicorewareinc.com>: > hi,Yang: > if you can give me a examle,which check out a string(such as "abcd") > from a file(such as aaa.c) with fileCheck?

Hi, I think lit.py’s current behavior is somewhat unintuitive in the presence of -v (and not using -vv), so I’m proposing that it be changed. Current behavior: -v: Prints all the substituted lines, not clear which line failed :( -vv: Prints all the lines up to and including the line that failed :) Option 1: -v: Prints only the failing line :) -vv: Same as today. :) -vvv (new): Prints all the

I'm using Windows 8.1, and every time I run check-clang, I eventually end up with a bunch of hung processes. Generally this is an instance of clang.exe, a bunch of instances of FileCheck.exe, and occasionally an llc.exe and an opt.exe. Inside, the processes are all hung inside of calls to WriteFile() attempting to write to stdout. I notice some of the tests fail with output indicating that

the example is more like what i need,it is so nice. but,i am indefinite if "RUN: FileCheck < %t.s %s" can pass,i understand that t.s was translate from t.ll,%s means read the local source,are they the same? On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Triple Yang <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote: > I did an experiment just now with a test case like: > // RUN: clang %s -S -emit-llvm

hi,Yang: if you can give me a examle,which check out a string(such as "abcd") from a file(such as aaa.c) with fileCheck? i tried to write it but failed. thanks for your help! best wished! changcheng On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Triple Yang <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote: > I guess so. > FileCheck has powerful extensions than just matching some strings so that >