[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Change tests to run with fixed (not-host dependent) triple

[Daniel Dunbar]

Just to also reply to Renato's concerns here, I'm on the same page with
David here.


On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:41 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>
> wrote:
> > Apart from what has already being said, which I agree mostly, I have
> > some specific comments:
> >
> >
> >> a. We change the test suite to run in such a way that all tools default
> to
> >> an "unknown" host triple.
> >
> > The assumptions will be different and I believe the refactoring of the
> > tests to make them pass on all currently passing architectures will
> > not be trivial. Good luck! ;)
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "refactoring of the tests to make them
> pass on all currently passing architectures" - if we force tests
> without specified triples to use an "unknown" triple, the tests would
> need to be refactored, but why would they need to be refactored to
> account for all currently passing architectures? They should behave
> exactly the same (since they won't inherit the host triple that they
> do now) on all test machines/architectures, right?
>
> >> b. If someone feels there is missing coverage in some area, we add
> increased
> >> tests for that area (which get run on all platforms).
> >
> > If you mean adding "unknown" triple tests as much as possible, I agree.
>
> I believe this statement was about the reverse: if certain
> target-specific coverage is required it would have to be done by
> writing a test that specifies /that/ target triple, not by (as is
> sometimes the case currently) writing a test that picks up the host
> triple & then running it on a machine with the desired triple to get
> coverage for.
>
> >> c. If there is some reason that running with an "unknown" host triple is
> >> undesirable, I propose that we set the default test triple to be
> >> "x86_64-pc-linux-gnu", and require deviations to be specified.
> >
> > Here, I don't agree. I don't see why one platform should be the
> > default over another.
>
> Because we would need/want a default of some kind. The argument here
> is: "If we can't choose some agnostic default for all tests, we should
> choose a non-agnostic default" - the only alternative position is that
> we don't choose a default but instead force every test to specify an
> arbitrary triple. I don't think this is substantially more valuable,
> though it is the current state of affairs among the tests that do have
> triples specified (that they are "random" in the sense that they're
> usually whatever architecture the developer is working on at the time
> - so we have lots of linux ones, lots of darwin ones, and a smattering
> of ARM)
>
> > A similar concept, but less prejudicial is: If the tests require
> > platform-specific features, platform-specific tests should be added.
> > *Only* those added will be assumed tested (for the sakes of
> > validation). Other architectures can add similar tests on their own
> > triples, if necessary / desired.
>
> Yes, that's the intent. This clause (c) was only applicable to the
> approach overall (ie: if there are no (or no substantial) tests that
> can be expressed with an unknown triple then we can't really use that
> as a default - we'd have to pick some other default, or have no
> default at all & force every test to specify a triple). For specific
> tests that need to test platform-specific things, that is what Daniel
> was saying in (b) - add coverage for that area by writing a test with
> an explicit triple.
>
> > In a nutshell, "unknown" defaults to nothing at all, whether running
> > on Intel, ARM, MIPS or whatever. If you default "unknown" to the host
> > architecture, or to a specific architecture, the benefits of having an
> > "unknown" target is void, IMO.
> >
> >
> > --
> > cheers,
> > --renato
> >
> > http://systemcall.org/
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121203/11c43433/attachment.html>