[llvm] r289648 - [AVR] Add the very first on-target test

[Dylan McKay via llvm-commits]

I'm looking into the 'test-suite' now. Thanks for all the feedback!

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Dec 14, 2016, at 12:48 PM, Dylan McKay via llvm-commits <
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> > This test will fail as soon as anyone builds the AVR back-end without
> access to AVR hardware.
>
> I added a config file that ignored the tests if AVR was not built? On top
> of that, the tests were only supposed to run if 'AVRLIT_BOARD' and
> 'AVRLIT_PORT' is set. Clearly it didn't work properly (due to my
> inexperience with Python)
>
> If I were to fix that, it wouldn't stop the tests from breaking if AVR was
> made non-experimental?
>
> > do not add *any* execution tests to the LLVM tree
>
> Do we have anything formal thing about this? I'd like to have a
> conversation about it. I agree it isn't something we really do currently,
> but I believe there is real value in adding these tests in tree.
>
>
> You could frame this as the typical discussion of an end-to-end test
> versus a unit test. Executing on the target pulls in all sort of
> dependencies (you probably need a target libc, you need a special executor,
> what if someone wants to use a simulator rather than a target etc.) While I
> think nobody denies that end-to-end tests are good to have, they are not
> suitable for the llvm repository which should have portable and focused
> tests that are closer to unit tests.
>
> The end-to-end and execution testing is usually done with the llvm
> test-suite which features a few hello-world like applications as well
> scattered accross SingleSource/UnitTest and SingleSource/Regression.
>
> - Matthias
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20161215/45be2043/attachment.html>