[compiler-rt] r260041 - Add coverage tests (defaulted constructors/destructor)

Tue Feb 9 17:38:08 PST 2016

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:09 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:08 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-commits <
>>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> > Could this be merged with the test in r260021?
>>>>
>>>> In theory 260021 can be merged into this one ( end-to-end test)
>>>
>>>
>>> We don't generally do end-to-end tests in the LIT repo. I realize
>>> compiler-rt is a bit different, but I think this general attitude still
>>> holds.
>>>
>>> Alexey (for want of any better person to consult - feel free to punt/CC
>>> others): what's the general philosophy on tests that go into compiler-rt's
>>> lit suite?
>>>
>>
>> compiler-rt lit test suite is tailored to running "end-to-end" tests:
>> using just-built Clang to build an executable, run this executable,
>> and inspect its output somehow (via FileCheck, or other tools).
>>
>
> Right - but I'm wondering what sort of things do you generally test
> end-to-end in compiler-rt.
>
> Take this change, for example - that adds profiling counters to another
> case in Clang. The IR looks identical to any other function with counters,
> so it's not adding more IR diversity to the coverage.
>
> I'm just not sure how much end-to-end testing you generally do in
> compiler-rt's test suite, how the tradeoffs look compared to more targeted
> testing in Clang or LLVM, etc.
>

Right... I don't know much about profile test suite, or how much coverage /
what features owners want to test there, but from a quick glance these test
cases seem reasonable:
we check that clang -> llvm-profdata -> llvm_cov pipeline works as expected
for defaulted functions. We're not checking for IR, or implementation
details here, which is IMO
nicer that Clang- or LLVM-specific test case. Still, test case in Clang
test suite is nice to have as well, because it would work on virtually all
targets, preventing people from breaking
this code accidentally if they're building on Mac OS w/o compiler-rt
checkout.

>
> Thanks,
> - Dave
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -- but
>>>> I think it is better to keep them separate as they are in different
>>>> repos.  I will clean up the test as you suggested else where.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Is this a Linux-specific test?
>>>>
>>>> It should not be. It is just I don't have a good way to test on other
>>>> platforms yet.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>> >
>>>> > vedant
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Feb 7, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-commits <
>>>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Author: davidxl
>>>> >> Date: Sun Feb  7 10:31:13 2016
>>>> >> New Revision: 260041
>>>> >>
>>>> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=260041&view=rev
>>>> >> Log:
>>>> >> Add coverage tests (defaulted constructors/destructor)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Added:
>>>> >>    compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_ctors.cpp
>>>> >>    compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_dtor.cpp
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Added: compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_ctors.cpp
>>>> >> URL:
>>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_ctors.cpp?rev=260041&view=auto
>>>> >>
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>> >> --- compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_ctors.cpp (added)
>>>> >> +++ compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_ctors.cpp Sun Feb
>>>> 7 10:31:13 2016
>>>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
>>>> >> +// RUN: %clang_profgen -x c++  -std=c++11 -fuse-ld=gold
>>>> -fcoverage-mapping -o %t %s
>>>> >> +// RUN: env LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=%t.profraw %run %t
>>>> >> +// RUN: llvm-profdata merge -o %t.profdata %t.profraw
>>>> >> +// RUN: llvm-cov show %t -instr-profile %t.profdata
>>>> -filename-equivalence 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
>>>> >> +
>>>> >> +struct Base {
>>>> >> +  int B;
>>>> >> +  Base() : B(2) {}
>>>> >> +  Base(const struct Base &b2) {
>>>> >> +    if (b2.B == 0) {
>>>> >> +      B = b2.B + 1;
>>>> >> +    } else
>>>> >> +      B = b2.B;
>>>> >> +  }
>>>> >> +};
>>>> >> +
>>>> >> +struct Derived : public Base {
>>>> >> +  Derived(const Derived &) = default; // CHECK:  2| [[@LINE]]|
>>>> Derived
>>>> >> +  Derived() = default;                // CHECK:  1| [[@LINE]]|
>>>> Derived
>>>> >> +  int I;
>>>> >> +  int J;
>>>> >> +  int getI() { return I; }
>>>> >> +};
>>>> >> +
>>>> >> +Derived dd;
>>>> >> +int g;
>>>> >> +int main() {
>>>> >> +  Derived dd2(dd);
>>>> >> +  Derived dd3(dd);
>>>> >> +
>>>> >> +  g = dd2.getI() + dd3.getI();
>>>> >> +  return 0;
>>>> >> +}
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Added: compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_dtor.cpp
>>>> >> URL:
>>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_dtor.cpp?rev=260041&view=auto
>>>> >>
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>> >> --- compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_dtor.cpp (added)
>>>> >> +++ compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_dtor.cpp Sun Feb
>>>> 7 10:31:13 2016
>>>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
>>>> >> +// RUN: %clang -x c++ -fno-exceptions  -std=c++11 -fuse-ld=gold
>>>> -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping -o %t %s
>>>> >> +// RUN: env LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=%t.profraw %run %t
>>>> >> +// RUN: llvm-profdata merge -o %t.profdata %t.profraw
>>>> >> +// RUN: llvm-cov show %t -instr-profile %t.profdata
>>>> -filename-equivalence 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
>>>> >> +
>>>> >> +struct Base {
>>>> >> +  int B;
>>>> >> +  Base(int B_) : B(B_) {}
>>>> >> +  ~Base() {}
>>>> >> +};
>>>> >> +
>>>> >> +struct Derived : public Base {
>>>> >> +  Derived(int K) : Base(K), I(K), J(K) {}
>>>> >> +  ~Derived() = default; // CHECK:  2| [[@LINE]]|  ~Derived
>>>> >> +  int I;
>>>> >> +  int J;
>>>> >> +  int getI() { return I; }
>>>> >> +};
>>>> >> +
>>>> >> +int g;
>>>> >> +int main() {
>>>> >> +  Derived dd(10);
>>>> >> +  Derived dd2(120);
>>>> >> +  g = dd2.getI() + dd.getI();
>>>> >> +  return 0;
>>>> >> +}
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>> >> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>>>> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>> >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexey Samsonov
>> vonosmas at gmail.com
>>
>
>

-- 
Alexey Samsonov
vonosmas at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160209/3048a6a4/attachment-0001.html>