[compiler-rt] r260041 - Add coverage tests (defaulted constructors/destructor)

Tue Feb 9 17:44:40 PST 2016

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:09 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:08 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-commits <
>>>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Could this be merged with the test in r260021?
>>>>>
>>>>> In theory 260021 can be merged into this one ( end-to-end test)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We don't generally do end-to-end tests in the LIT repo. I realize
>>>> compiler-rt is a bit different, but I think this general attitude still
>>>> holds.
>>>>
>>>> Alexey (for want of any better person to consult - feel free to punt/CC
>>>> others): what's the general philosophy on tests that go into compiler-rt's
>>>> lit suite?
>>>>
>>>
>>> compiler-rt lit test suite is tailored to running "end-to-end" tests:
>>> using just-built Clang to build an executable, run this executable,
>>> and inspect its output somehow (via FileCheck, or other tools).
>>>
>>
>> Right - but I'm wondering what sort of things do you generally test
>> end-to-end in compiler-rt.
>>
>> Take this change, for example - that adds profiling counters to another
>> case in Clang. The IR looks identical to any other function with counters,
>> so it's not adding more IR diversity to the coverage.
>>
>> I'm just not sure how much end-to-end testing you generally do in
>> compiler-rt's test suite, how the tradeoffs look compared to more targeted
>> testing in Clang or LLVM, etc.
>>
>
> Right... I don't know much about profile test suite, or how much coverage
> / what features owners want to test there,
>

I was curious about the precedent here in the way of other/prior uses of
compiler-rt such as the sanitizers to learn from existing experience,
community norms, etc. My assumption was that we don't really test
everything end-to-end, at least as far as I recall seeing patches to
sanitizers and compiler-rt, but quite possibly I've misunderstood the uses
here.

> but from a quick glance these test cases seem reasonable:
> we check that clang -> llvm-profdata -> llvm_cov pipeline works as
> expected for defaulted functions. We're not checking for IR, or
> implementation details here, which is IMO
> nicer that Clang- or LLVM-specific test case. Still, test case in Clang
> test suite is nice to have as well, because it would work on virtually all
> targets, preventing people from breaking
> this code accidentally if they're building on Mac OS w/o compiler-rt
> checkout.
>

Right, my main worry/thought is that these tests seem mostly redundant
except fort he frontend part - I would've expected a representative sample
to be tested end-to-end (each different kind of counter, for example) but
I'm surprised if the norm is to test end-to-end any change that's made
along the pipeline.

- David

>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -- but
>>>>> I think it is better to keep them separate as they are in different
>>>>> repos.  I will clean up the test as you suggested else where.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Is this a Linux-specific test?
>>>>>
>>>>> It should not be. It is just I don't have a good way to test on other
>>>>> platforms yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>> >
>>>>> > vedant
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> On Feb 7, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-commits <
>>>>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Author: davidxl
>>>>> >> Date: Sun Feb  7 10:31:13 2016
>>>>> >> New Revision: 260041
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=260041&view=rev
>>>>> >> Log:
>>>>> >> Add coverage tests (defaulted constructors/destructor)
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Added:
>>>>> >>    compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_ctors.cpp
>>>>> >>    compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_dtor.cpp
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Added: compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_ctors.cpp
>>>>> >> URL:
>>>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_ctors.cpp?rev=260041&view=auto
>>>>> >>
>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>> >> --- compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_ctors.cpp (added)
>>>>> >> +++ compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_ctors.cpp Sun
>>>>> Feb  7 10:31:13 2016
>>>>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
>>>>> >> +// RUN: %clang_profgen -x c++  -std=c++11 -fuse-ld=gold
>>>>> -fcoverage-mapping -o %t %s
>>>>> >> +// RUN: env LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=%t.profraw %run %t
>>>>> >> +// RUN: llvm-profdata merge -o %t.profdata %t.profraw
>>>>> >> +// RUN: llvm-cov show %t -instr-profile %t.profdata
>>>>> -filename-equivalence 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
>>>>> >> +
>>>>> >> +struct Base {
>>>>> >> +  int B;
>>>>> >> +  Base() : B(2) {}
>>>>> >> +  Base(const struct Base &b2) {
>>>>> >> +    if (b2.B == 0) {
>>>>> >> +      B = b2.B + 1;
>>>>> >> +    } else
>>>>> >> +      B = b2.B;
>>>>> >> +  }
>>>>> >> +};
>>>>> >> +
>>>>> >> +struct Derived : public Base {
>>>>> >> +  Derived(const Derived &) = default; // CHECK:  2| [[@LINE]]|
>>>>> Derived
>>>>> >> +  Derived() = default;                // CHECK:  1| [[@LINE]]|
>>>>> Derived
>>>>> >> +  int I;
>>>>> >> +  int J;
>>>>> >> +  int getI() { return I; }
>>>>> >> +};
>>>>> >> +
>>>>> >> +Derived dd;
>>>>> >> +int g;
>>>>> >> +int main() {
>>>>> >> +  Derived dd2(dd);
>>>>> >> +  Derived dd3(dd);
>>>>> >> +
>>>>> >> +  g = dd2.getI() + dd3.getI();
>>>>> >> +  return 0;
>>>>> >> +}
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Added: compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_dtor.cpp
>>>>> >> URL:
>>>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_dtor.cpp?rev=260041&view=auto
>>>>> >>
>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>> >> --- compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_dtor.cpp (added)
>>>>> >> +++ compiler-rt/trunk/test/profile/Linux/coverage_dtor.cpp Sun Feb
>>>>> 7 10:31:13 2016
>>>>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
>>>>> >> +// RUN: %clang -x c++ -fno-exceptions  -std=c++11 -fuse-ld=gold
>>>>> -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping -o %t %s
>>>>> >> +// RUN: env LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=%t.profraw %run %t
>>>>> >> +// RUN: llvm-profdata merge -o %t.profdata %t.profraw
>>>>> >> +// RUN: llvm-cov show %t -instr-profile %t.profdata
>>>>> -filename-equivalence 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
>>>>> >> +
>>>>> >> +struct Base {
>>>>> >> +  int B;
>>>>> >> +  Base(int B_) : B(B_) {}
>>>>> >> +  ~Base() {}
>>>>> >> +};
>>>>> >> +
>>>>> >> +struct Derived : public Base {
>>>>> >> +  Derived(int K) : Base(K), I(K), J(K) {}
>>>>> >> +  ~Derived() = default; // CHECK:  2| [[@LINE]]|  ~Derived
>>>>> >> +  int I;
>>>>> >> +  int J;
>>>>> >> +  int getI() { return I; }
>>>>> >> +};
>>>>> >> +
>>>>> >> +int g;
>>>>> >> +int main() {
>>>>> >> +  Derived dd(10);
>>>>> >> +  Derived dd2(120);
>>>>> >> +  g = dd2.getI() + dd.getI();
>>>>> >> +  return 0;
>>>>> >> +}
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>> >> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>> >
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alexey Samsonov
>>> vonosmas at gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alexey Samsonov
> vonosmas at gmail.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160209/341ff04a/attachment.html>