Re: T11758 testcase help needed

[Thomas Miedema]

Hi Alex,

You're deleting hacks that were added for ancient version of binutils
(added in 14a5aadb84c34dbe2bee129ed80fdfa1fb12e3e0 in 2005
and b8a64b8ec9cd3d8f6e3f23e44312c4903eccac45 in 2007).

I think that if you submit your patch without a test, there's a good chance
it will get accepted.

Thomas

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Edward Z. Yang  wrote:

> I am not sure if this will work, but how about dumping the assembly and
> looking for sign extension?  C-- might be easier!
>
> Excerpts from Alex Dzyoba's message of 2016-07-09 08:25:39 -0400:
> > Hi, all!
> >
> > I was working on #11758, which is about dropping binutils<2.17 hack, and
> while
> > it was relatively easy to remove the hack itself, I'm not sure how to
> add a
> > test case for it.
> >
> > As I understand, after removing the aforementioned hack, native codegen
> now
> > shouldn't generate sign extension. So my question is how to test it?
> Should it
> > be Cmm file that will be tested with `compile_cmp_asm` like memcpy in
> > "codeGen/should_gen_asm/memcpy.cmm"? Or should I stick to
> > the Haskell test?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex Dzyoba
> ___
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: T11758 testcase help needed

[Edward Z. Yang]

I am not sure if this will work, but how about dumping the assembly and
looking for sign extension?  C-- might be easier!

Excerpts from Alex Dzyoba's message of 2016-07-09 08:25:39 -0400:
> Hi, all!
> 
> I was working on #11758, which is about dropping binutils<2.17 hack, and while
> it was relatively easy to remove the hack itself, I'm not sure how to add a
> test case for it.
> 
> As I understand, after removing the aforementioned hack, native codegen now
> shouldn't generate sign extension. So my question is how to test it? Should it
> be Cmm file that will be tested with `compile_cmp_asm` like memcpy in
> "codeGen/should_gen_asm/memcpy.cmm"? Or should I stick to
> the Haskell test?
> 
> Thanks,
> Alex Dzyoba
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

T11758 testcase help needed

[Alex Dzyoba]

Hi, all!

I was working on #11758, which is about dropping binutils<2.17 hack, and while
it was relatively easy to remove the hack itself, I'm not sure how to add a
test case for it.

As I understand, after removing the aforementioned hack, native codegen now
shouldn't generate sign extension. So my question is how to test it? Should it
be Cmm file that will be tested with `compile_cmp_asm` like memcpy in
"codeGen/should_gen_asm/memcpy.cmm"? Or should I stick to
the Haskell test?

Thanks,
Alex Dzyoba
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs