[LLVMdev] Useless/Mis-placed Tests?

[Reid Spencer]

Okay, so how about #2? Shouldn't the SingleSource/Regression tests be
modified to increase their execution time (by, say, executing the whole
test multiple times) ? This would put them on the radar from a
performance perspective.

Reid.

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 10:17 -0500, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Reid Spencer wrote:
> 
> > For some time now the tests in llvm-test/SingleSource/Regression and
> > llvm-test/SingleSource/UnitTests have been producing no meaningful
> > performance data other than "working". I think one of two things should
> > be done, on a case-by-case basis:
> >
> > 1. Tests that are clearly simple, quick running tests should be moved
> > into the llvm/test/Regression directory and made part of the deja-gnu
> > suite since they are supposed to test functionality and their
> > performance isn't really of significance.
> >
> > 2. Tests that are a little more complex and *could* have meaningful
> > performance data should have their "main" functions put in a loop so
> > that these programs runs sufficiently long to produce meaningful
> > performance numbers. Currently their results are so small that we just
> > get - in the nightly report.
> >
> > Is there a reason we haven't done this yet?
> 
> Because llvm-test is a coverage testsuite that we happen to get perf data 
> from, not a performance suite.  There is no way to run tests in the 
> llvm/test/Regression directory.  All of these tests require running to 
> show that they work.
> 
> OTOH, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to merging SingleSource/Regression 
> with SingleSource/UnitTests.  There is no useful distinction there.
> 
> -Chris
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050616/82182209/attachment.sig>