Renato Golin via Openmp-dev <openmp-...@lists.llvm.org> writes: > But if we have some consensus on doing a clean job, then I would > actually like to have that kind of intermediary check (diagnostics, > warnings, etc) on most test-suite tests, which would cover at least > the main vectorisation issues. Later, we could add more analysis > tools, if we want.
I think this makes a lot of sense. > It would be as simple as adding CHECK lines on the execution of the > compilation process (in CMake? Make? wrapper?) and keep the check > files with the tests / per file. Yep. > I think we're on the same page regarding almost everything, but > perhaps I haven't been clear enough on the main point, which I think > it's pretty simple. :) Personally, I still find source-to-asm tests to be highly valuable and I don't think we need test-suite for that. Such tests don't (usually) depend on system libraries (headers may occasionally be an issue but I would argue that the test is too fragile in that case). So maybe we separate concerns. Use test-suite to do the kind of system-level testing you've discussed but still allow some tests in a monorepo top-level directory that test across components but don't depend on system configurations. If people really object to a top-level monorepo test directory I guess they could go into test-suite but that makes it much more cumbersome to run what really should be very simple tests. -David _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev