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

Tue Feb 9 20:45:50 PST 2016

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:44 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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,
>>
>
> I was curious about the precedent here in the way of other/prior uses of
> compiler-rt such as the sanitizers to learn from existing experience,
> community norms, etc. My assumption was that we don't really test
> everything end-to-end, at least as far as I recall seeing patches to
> sanitizers and compiler-rt, but quite possibly I've misunderstood the uses
> here.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Right, my main worry/thought is that these tests seem mostly redundant
> except fort he frontend part - I would've expected a representative sample
> to be tested end-to-end (each different kind of counter, for example) but
> I'm surprised if the norm is to test end-to-end any change that's made
> along the pipeline.
>

Oh, OK. No, we don't have a guideline that every change along the pipeline
should be covered by end-to-end test, it's mostly on case-by-case basis.
So, if the lit test doesn't cover any interesting new behavior then it can
be considered as redundant, given the existence of frontend-only test.
However, I'll leave that to davidxl.

>
>
> - David
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>
>

-- 
Alexey Samsonov
vonosmas at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160209/df40aa7d/attachment.html>