[cfe-dev] separate repository for test suite?

Daniel Dunbar daniel at zuster.org
Tue Sep 16 20:18:47 PDT 2008

In my opinion, the kinds of tests that go in the clang test level should
almost always be small and minimized enough that this is a non-issue.
For test cases I personally reduce I usually minimize aggressively
and do some canonicalization of names (f1, f2, f3 or foo bar), largely
out of personal preference but it covers the license issue as well. Small
test cases for regression or feature issues benefit everyone by running
faster and highlighting the issue.

For larger tests and for executable tests I think the LLVM style approach
is that they should be in a separate repository regardless of license issues.
Its not clear to me that this repo needs to be different from the LLVM test
suite one, however. I think we just need to provide better hooks for running
the LLVM test suite using clang.

 - Daniel

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote:
> I wanted to raise the question of whether or not clang needs a
> separate repository for its test suite (as we do for llvm).
> Lately we have been adding new test cases to the test suite that came
> from bug reports of this-or-that project not being parsed/analyzed
> correctly by clang.  Often these test cases are reduced versions of
> preprocessed files.  My concern is whether or not those test cases,
> which could be considered "derived work", fall under the original
> license of that source code.  If that is the case, does this pose
> issues for clang?
> The case I'm most concerned about is test cases that come from GPL'ed
> projects, since that license is obviously far different in its legal
> parameters than the UIUC license.  Checking in a mix of GPL and non-
> GPL code into the clang repository may be problematic.
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list