[LLVMdev] should we stop using llvm-as/llvm-dis in tests?

Óscar Fuentes ofv at wanadoo.es
Sat Sep 5 19:05:33 PDT 2009

Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> writes:

>>> A recent commit added the ability to opt and llc to read .ll files
>>> directly. Should we go through and update the existing tests?
>> Yes, I think that Dan is planning to do this.
> ... and it is definitely worth doing. On my system a 'time' of make
> check reports that about 50% of the real time running make check is
> spent in the OS. This probably also limits the efficacy of attempts to
> parallelize the test suite, if someone was crazy enough to do that.

Why would be crazy to run the test suite on parallel? Because DejaGNU

My compiler's test suite is driven by a poor-man's version of DejaGNU
(also written on Tcl, but not requiring Expect) that supports parallel
runs (with a -j command-line parameter, á la make) and works on Linux
and Windows.

Since long time ago I'm thinking on expanding its functionality for
accepting DejaGNU test cases and add it to the cmake build, but I'm
afraid of corner cases. You know, the 99% of the complexity on the 1% of
the instances.

Would you consider parallel runs and Windows support enough motivation
for rewriting those (hypothetical) corner cases as equivalent but
simpler ones?


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list