[llvm-commits] [llvm] r79615 - in /llvm/trunk/test/Analysis/Profiling: ./ 2009-08-21-irregular-loop.ll 2009-08-21-only-one-block.ll 2009-08-21-several-blocks.ll dg.exp

Andreas Neustifter e0325716 at student.tuwien.ac.at
Tue Aug 25 05:59:46 PDT 2009

Hi Daniel!

Daniel Dunbar wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
> I talked with Chris about this the morning, and I think we agreed that
> lli based tests for this stuff are ok, as long as we limit them to
> just a few. The main thing we basically need lli for is to test the
> generation of the profiling information; I think a single solid test
> for that would be good enough for now.

Yes, thats what I was thinking now. Its possbile to test much of the rest without actually executing it but there has to be one test that exercises the whole profiling tool chain in the intended way.

> We should solve the problem that this requires the JIT, though. A
> simple first option is to disable the test if there is no JIT support.
> A slightly better one would be to run it using the .bca version of the
> profiling information, but that of course requires that the user
> configure with llvm-gcc support.

What is the easiest way to check if JIT is supported on a give platform during the tests?

> I think we can find ways to test some of the other stuff without using
> lli. For example, the static profile provider should be good enough to
> test llvm-prof's output.
> Sound OK?

Yes, I will think of more representative tests.


More information about the llvm-commits mailing list