[PATCH} [Review Request] MCJIT PIC support for x86-64

[Daniel Dunbar]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>wrote:
>
>>  Hi Eli,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions regarding documentation.  I’ll see what I can
>> put together.  I believe I still have the diagrams you referred to, and I
>> can put together something more to describe the control flow.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> BTW, I wanted to let you know that your old blog posts describing the PIC
>> relocation model were extremely helpful as I was putting this patch
>> together.  Yours was the clearest description of PIC handling that I was
>> able to find.
>>
>
> Glad it helped! I'll have to reread them myself before I review your patch
> ;-)
>
>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Also, I meant to ask what ever happened to the lit subtest patch that you
>> submitted about a year and a half ago.  As far as I can tell it was never
>> committed, but I couldn’t tell why not.  The “new” tests I’m introducing
>> are just duplications of other tests with variations in invocation
>> arguments.  It would be nice to be able to simplify that ExecutionEngine
>> testing tree.
>>
>
> I recall the patch was very close to being done, and Daniel Dunbar was OK
> with it, but somehow in the last stages of reviewing we both got
> distracted. The real problem is that the last versions of the patch were
> mailed directly to Daniel from... my old @intel.com address. So unless
> Daniel (CCd) still has them lying somewhere, I fear the patch is lost :-/
> Not that it was a big deal, and it would have to be tweaked in light of the
> recent additions to FileCheck anyhow. I still believe it's a good thing to
> have and will be happy to help reviewing a new patch if anyone is willing
> to take it over.
>

I've attached the last version I got from you. I think if we were going to
revisit adding this I might want to take a slightly different approach in
light of some other directions I would like to take lit. Primarily I would
like to consider lifting the subtest handling up to the generic lit layer
instead of specific to the ShTest format. There are other test formats I am
hoping to develop that could make use of some kind of explicit subtest
support. This would also solve one of the outstanding issues with the patch
which was how to compute an overall test result status in the presence of
XFAILs, XPASS, etc.

I would also like to know how support for parameterized tests overlaps with
this. For MCJIT specifically it sounds like what is really desired is some
support for parameterized tests so that all the JIT tests can be run with
and without the MCJIT. That feature has come up in the past as well, and
could be really useful in cases where we want to, e.g., run a test for each
configured target.

 - Daniel


>
> Eli
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130816/ded227cf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lit_subtest_4.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 16679 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130816/ded227cf/attachment.obj>