On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:54 PM David Greene via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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. > I'm inclined to the direction suggested by others that the monorepo is orthogonal to this issue and top level tests might not be the right thing. lldb already does end-to-end testing in its tests, for instance. Clang does in some tests (the place I always hit is anything that's configured API-wise on the MCContext - there's no way to test that configuration on the clang boundary, so the only test that we can write is one that tests the effect of that API/programmatic configuration done by clang to the MCContext (function sections, for instance) - in some cases I've just skipped the testing, in others I've written the end-to-end test in clang (& an LLVM test for the functionality that uses llvm-mc or similar)). > 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 > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
