[LLVMdev] Validating LLVM

David Greene dag at cray.com
Tue Nov 11 13:15:32 PST 2008

On Tuesday 11 November 2008 14:41, John Regehr wrote:
> > validation runs. That way you get the benefits of random testing
> > without spurious changes in validation status dependent on randomly
> > generated tests.
> Sounds great.  I'm not trying to push random testing on people who don't
> want it, but I think it is useful to the LLVM project and it's not clear
> that I have the resources to keep doing it myself indefinitely.
> The tools are, I think, to the point where they can be pushed into an
> automated build/test loop, which is what I'm aiming for.  If this testing
> is done continuously and for several targets then more regressions can be
> squashed while they're fresh.

I think we're all in violent agreement here.

I absolutely see great value in random test generation.  I would support
some regular random testing and incorporating tests that trigger failures into 
the static LLVM testsuite.  This should be done on a regular basis.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list