[LLVMdev] clang testing?

[John Regehr]

Sounds good.  Each report requires effort to produce a minimized testcase 
and to attempt to ensure that the bug is fresh so I definitely won't be 
submitting thousands!

Thanks,

John Regehr


On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Mike Stump wrote:

> On Jun 27, 2008, at 1:41 PM, John Regehr wrote:
>> Just for fun I added clang to the list of compilers that my random
>> tester beats on.  It found a codegen bug in short order.  Would you
>> folks say that clang is ready for the fairly high degree of abuse
>> produced by my tool or would it be better to wait until it matures?
>> Thanks,
>
> I say beat it up and file problem reports for it.  No better way to
> get it in tip top shape.  I'll assume you're doing C testing.  If C++,
> I'd say wait a while, as C++ is only 3-5% of the way there.  I'd
> probably say, only file 10-20 reports, and then stream more in as
> those are fixed.  This should help reduce the work that you do and
> self limit so you don't file a thousand or more bug reports, which, I
> suspect we wouldn't want.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>