[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Change tests to run with fixed (not-host dependent) triple

David Blaikie dblaikie at gmail.com
Mon Dec 3 10:59:31 PST 2012

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:21 AM, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On
> Behalf Of David Blaikie
> Sent: 03 December 2012 16:41
> To: Renato Golin
> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List; cfe-dev
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] RFC: Change tests to run with fixed
> (not-host dependent) triple
>>> c. If there is some reason that running with an "unknown" host triple is
>>> undesirable, I propose that we set the default test triple to be
>>> "x86_64-pc-linux-gnu", and require deviations to be specified.
>> Here, I don't agree. I don't see why one platform should be the
>> default over another.
> | Because we would need/want a default of some kind. The argument here
> | is: "If we can't choose some agnostic default for all tests, we should
> | choose a non-agnostic default" - the only alternative position is that
> | we don't choose a default but instead force every test to specify an
> | arbitrary triple. I don't think this is substantially more valuable,
> | though it is the current state of affairs among the tests that do have
> | triples specified (that they are "random" in the sense that they're
> | usually whatever architecture the developer is working on at the time
> | - so we have lots of linux ones, lots of darwin ones, and a smattering
> | of ARM)
> Just a point here: the reason I'd mildly prefer not to have a default that
> avoids as much target dependent stuff as possible is that it's generally
> going to have a higher probability of passing even if something is "wrong"
> in the sense that, eg, if the return type of some thing is ABI mandated to
> be void, then you could be getting the type from the wrong place and still
> pass since all places give the same result;

Sorry, I think I lost track of this example around here. What do you
mean by "getting the type from the wrong place"?
What sort of solution are you proposing?

What I think we're discussing here is:
All tests without a triple be written in such a way as to pass for any
triple (& there would be test infrastructure to help ensure this) &
that the default would be a fixed "unknown" triple, or an arbitrary
(but constant/singular) concrete triple.

What is it you have in mind?

>  if you happen to be doing this
> on an ABI where the where the value differs depending where it is obtained
> from then you'll probably catch errors that are "latent errors" for the
> simpler ABI. (Yes, this is a thinly disguised version of the
> devirtualisation issue, but I do think this phenomenon may apply elsewhere:
> the less complicated an ABI the more chance that something "slightly wrong"
> will actually pass.) Those are my thoughts anyway.
> Regards,
> Dave

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list