Re: Is testing libgomp outside of the build tree supported?
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > could somebody please shed some light on how this is done? It's nice that > everybody has this kind of testing, but the only bit in the gcc sources itself > seems to be a bit bit-rot and incomplete (contrib/test_installed). Our case is similar to what Jeff and Joseph already described. I wrote a script that splits the testsuite directories in equal-sized chunks and ships them off to different machines. Each machine generates its site.exp file, and executes runtest with the list of files. This has exposed a few problems with the testsuite. There are implied dependencies that some directories have on others (e.g., using other directories header files) and the multi-files tests are not explicit about it. So, you may end up sending files needed in the same test to different machines. Diego.
Re: Is testing libgomp outside of the build tree supported?
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Jeff Law wrote: > I suspect most folks have a site.exp they drop somewhere and explicitly call > runtest --tool gcc * Create site.exp (based on what GCC's makefiles do for build-tree testing). Note that in some cases you may need different contents for different testsuite, especially runtime libraries. * Set up PATH so the installed compilers are found, LD_LIBRARY_PATH so the installed shared libraries are found by the dynamic linker (or otherwise set up your board file appropriately for running newly compiled programs). * runtest --srcdir /some/where --tool whatever If you compare results of this for build-tree and installed testing, fixing differences is very useful. (There are some known bugs for such differences; at least, bugs 23867, 25320, 58867.) -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: Is testing libgomp outside of the build tree supported?
On 02/05/14 15:10, Matthias Klose wrote: Am 04.02.2014 03:14, schrieb Mike Stump: On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: If the presence of the build tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is OK. I would like to discourage that. Testing an already installed GCC for which no build tree exists is a very useful feature. I agree. Here at Cavium, we use the packaged up toolchain that comes from a RPM and test it so we are testing exactly what we ship out to our customers. Similarly at Mentor. And the maintainer of the test suite thinks that supporting the people that ship gcc to large numbers of people who help ensure the quality of gcc is useful. :-) It is nice to hear from people that this type of testing is useful; thanks. could somebody please shed some light on how this is done? It's nice that everybody has this kind of testing, but the only bit in the gcc sources itself seems to be a bit bit-rot and incomplete (contrib/test_installed). I suspect most folks have a site.exp they drop somewhere and explicitly call runtest --tool gcc I know we do it internally in our QE team, but I never asked them about the current mechanics of how it's done. Jeff
Re: Is testing libgomp outside of the build tree supported?
Am 04.02.2014 03:14, schrieb Mike Stump: > On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > If the presence of the build > tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is > OK. I would like to discourage that. Testing an already installed GCC for which no build tree exists is a very useful feature. >>> >>> I agree. Here at Cavium, we use the packaged up toolchain that comes >>> from a RPM and test it so we are testing exactly what we ship out to >>> our customers. >> >> Similarly at Mentor. > > And the maintainer of the test suite thinks that supporting the people that > ship gcc to large numbers of people who help ensure the quality of gcc is > useful. :-) It is nice to hear from people that this type of testing is > useful; thanks. could somebody please shed some light on how this is done? It's nice that everybody has this kind of testing, but the only bit in the gcc sources itself seems to be a bit bit-rot and incomplete (contrib/test_installed). thanks, Matthias
Re: Is testing libgomp outside of the build tree supported?
On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> If the presence of the build tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is OK. >>> >>> I would like to discourage that. Testing an already installed GCC for >>> which no build tree exists is a very useful feature. >> >> I agree. Here at Cavium, we use the packaged up toolchain that comes >> from a RPM and test it so we are testing exactly what we ship out to >> our customers. > > Similarly at Mentor. And the maintainer of the test suite thinks that supporting the people that ship gcc to large numbers of people who help ensure the quality of gcc is useful. :-) It is nice to hear from people that this type of testing is useful; thanks.
Re: Is testing libgomp outside of the build tree supported?
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > >> If the presence of the build > >> tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is > >> OK. > > > > I would like to discourage that. Testing an already installed GCC for > > which no build tree exists is a very useful feature. > > I agree. Here at Cavium, we use the packaged up toolchain that comes > from a RPM and test it so we are testing exactly what we ship out to > our customers. Similarly at Mentor. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: Is testing libgomp outside of the build tree supported?
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> If the presence of the build >> tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is >> OK. > > I would like to discourage that. Testing an already installed GCC for > which no build tree exists is a very useful feature. I agree. Here at Cavium, we use the packaged up toolchain that comes from a RPM and test it so we are testing exactly what we ship out to our customers. > > Internally, we have a very strong dependency on this feature. If it > were to disappear, it would be almost impossible for us to test the > compiler at the massive scale that we do. We (Cavium) have the same strong dependency too. Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > > Diego.
Re: Is testing libgomp outside of the build tree supported?
On 02/03/14 12:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 11:11:31AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: We test GCC without access to the build tree (we only have convenient access to install and source trees). Building libgomp.c/affinity-1.c and libgomp.c++/affinity-1.C fails in such testing, because of '#include "config.h"' which is nowhere to be found. Is that a bug? Should I open a bugzilla issue for it? If it's easy to fix then I think it should be fixed. But I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule that all GCC tests can be run without the build tree. If the presence of the build tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is OK. If there is some effective target or similar way to limit the tests to build tree testing, then those tests probably could be guarded by that, otherwise you'll have to live with the FAILs, there isn't an easy way to reconstruct the configure tests whether it is ok to use the affinity or not. Just a note, we (Red Hat) depend on out-of-tree testing working too, so it'd be good to get this resolved. jeff
Re: Is testing libgomp outside of the build tree supported?
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 11:11:31AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov > wrote: > > > > We test GCC without access to the build tree (we only have convenient > > access to > > install and source trees). > > > > Building libgomp.c/affinity-1.c and libgomp.c++/affinity-1.C fails in > > such testing, because of '#include "config.h"' which is nowhere to be > > found. > > > > Is that a bug? > > Should I open a bugzilla issue for it? > > If it's easy to fix then I think it should be fixed. > > But I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule that all GCC > tests can be run without the build tree. If the presence of the build > tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is > OK. If there is some effective target or similar way to limit the tests to build tree testing, then those tests probably could be guarded by that, otherwise you'll have to live with the FAILs, there isn't an easy way to reconstruct the configure tests whether it is ok to use the affinity or not. Jakub
Re: Is testing libgomp outside of the build tree supported?
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > If the presence of the build > tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is > OK. I would like to discourage that. Testing an already installed GCC for which no build tree exists is a very useful feature. Internally, we have a very strong dependency on this feature. If it were to disappear, it would be almost impossible for us to test the compiler at the massive scale that we do. Diego.
Re: Is testing libgomp outside of the build tree supported?
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > > We test GCC without access to the build tree (we only have convenient access > to > install and source trees). > > Building libgomp.c/affinity-1.c and libgomp.c++/affinity-1.C fails in > such testing, because of '#include "config.h"' which is nowhere to be > found. > > Is that a bug? > Should I open a bugzilla issue for it? If it's easy to fix then I think it should be fixed. But I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule that all GCC tests can be run without the build tree. If the presence of the build tree makes writing some tests significantly simpler, I think that is OK. Ian
Is testing libgomp outside of the build tree supported?
Greetings, We test GCC without access to the build tree (we only have convenient access to install and source trees). Building libgomp.c/affinity-1.c and libgomp.c++/affinity-1.C fails in such testing, because of '#include "config.h"' which is nowhere to be found. Is that a bug? Should I open a bugzilla issue for it? Thanks,
