[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Testing Best Practices/Goals (in the context of compiler-rt)

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com>
wrote:

> Sean and Alexey have said a lot on this topic.  Here is my version of
> explanation that LLVM testing is not suitable to replace end to end testing.
>
>  - The most important reason being that LLVM tests tend to test
> 'implementation details'. This has many drawbacks:
>   a) by only writing test cases like this, it is hard to expose bugs
> inherited in the implementation itself;
>   b) the connection between the implementation and end-user expectation is
> not obvious
>   c) often in times, we will have to throw out the existing implementation
> for a whole new more efficient implementation -- not only do we need to pay
> the cost of tedious test case update (from one impl to another) -- but that
> all the previous implementation specific code coverage become useless --
> how are we sure the new implementation does not break the end-end user
> expectation?
>

Yep, there are certainly tradeoffs between unit/feature/integration testing.


> End-end tests on the other hand have no such drawbacks -- its
> specification is well defined:
>   1) it is easy to write test cases based on well defined specifications
> and cover all corner cases (e.g, new language constructs etc);
>

I'm not sure that integration/end-to-end testing is more likely to exercise
corner cases.


>   2) it is easy to extract test cases from real failures from very large
> apps
>

We seem to have been pretty good, as a community, at producing the narrow
feature/unit tests for breakages from very large applications/scenarios. I
wouldn't be happy about not having targeted tests because we had broad
coverage from some large test - so I don't think this removes the need to
reduce and isolate test cases.


>   3) once the test case is written, it almost never needs to be updated as
> long as the public interfaces (options) are used.
>
> End-end testing also cover areas not in compiler proper -- like runtime,
> linker, other tools, and their subtle interactions.
>

This is actually a drawback of integration testing - we don't actually want
to test those products. And we don't want to make our testing dependent on
them, generally - it makes the tests more expensive in a number of ways
(more work to setup, costlier to run, more likely to break for non-product
reasons, more work to debug because they involve more moving parts). This
is one of the tradeoffs of broader testing strategies.


> For instance latest darwin i386 profile-rt bug exposed by the improved
> profile runtime test coverage will be hard to expose via LLVM only testing
> ..
>

I'm not familiar with the bug - could you provide more detail?


> In short, I think runtime tests do not overlap with LLVM testing -- even
> though they look like testing the same thing. For reference, we currently
> have < 100 profile rt end-end testing which is alarmingly small.  We should
> push increasing its coverage.
>

While I don't fundamentally have a problem with different kinds of testing
(Up to feature/integration testing, etc), I really don't want that testing
to become what we rely on for correctness, nor what we expect developers
(or even most buildbots) to run for correctness. They are slower and
problematic in different ways that would slow down our velocity.

That sort of coverage should still be carefully chosen for when it adds
value, not too scattershot/broad (we have the test-suite for really broad
"does this work with the real world" sort of stuff - but anything below
that should still be fairly isolated/targeted, I think).

- David


>
> thanks,
>
> David
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:15 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:34 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:11 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:45 AM, David Blaikie via cfe-dev <
>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Alexey Samsonov <
>>>>>>>> vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:50 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Alexey Samsonov via cfe-dev <
>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I mostly agree with what Richard and Justin said. Adding a few
>>>>>>>>>>> notes about the general strategy we use:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (1) lit tests which look "end-to-end" proved to be way more
>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for testing runtime libraries than unit tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We do have
>>>>>>>>>>> the latter, and use them to provide test coverage for utility
>>>>>>>>>>> functions, but we quite often accompany fix to the runtime library with
>>>>>>>>>>> "end-to-end" small reproducer extracted from the real-world code
>>>>>>>>>>> that exposed the issue.
>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally, this tests a whole lot of other functionality:
>>>>>>>>>>> Clang driver, frontend, LLVM passes, etc, but it's not the intent of the
>>>>>>>>>>> test.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed - this is analogous to the tests for, say, LLD that use
>>>>>>>>>> llvm-mc to produce the inputs rather than checking in object files. That
>>>>>>>>>> area is open to some discussion as to just how many tools we should rope
>>>>>>>>>> in/how isolated we should make tests (eg: maybe building the json object
>>>>>>>>>> file format was going too far towards isolation? Not clear - opinions
>>>>>>>>>> differ). But the point of the test is to test the compiler-rt functionality
>>>>>>>>>> that was added/removed/modified.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think most people are in agreement with that, while
>>>>>>>>>> acknowledging the fuzzy line about how isolated we might be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> These tests are sometimes platform-specific and poorly portable,
>>>>>>>>>>> but they are more reliable (we make the same steps as the
>>>>>>>>>>> user of the compiler), and serve the purpose of documentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (2) If we change LLVM instrumentation - we add a test to LLVM.
>>>>>>>>>>> If we change Clang code generation or driver behavior - we add
>>>>>>>>>>> a test to Clang. No excuses here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Sometimes we still add a compiler-rt test for the change in
>>>>>>>>>>> LLVM or Clang: e.g. if we enhance Clang frontend to teach UBSan
>>>>>>>>>>> to detecting yet another kind of overflow, it makes sense to add
>>>>>>>>>>> a test to UBSan test-suite that demonstrates it, in addition to
>>>>>>>>>>> Clang test verifying that we emit a call to UBSan runtime. Also,
>>>>>>>>>>> compiler-rt test would allow us to verify that the actual error report
>>>>>>>>>>> we present to the user is sane.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This bit ^ is a bit unclear to me. If there was no change to the
>>>>>>>>>> UBSan runtime, and the code generated by Clang is equivalent/similar to an
>>>>>>>>>> existing use of the UBSan runtime - what is it that the new compiler-rt
>>>>>>>>>> test is providing? (perhaps you could give a concrete example you had in
>>>>>>>>>> mind to look at?)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See r235568 (change to Clang) followed by r235569 (change to
>>>>>>>>> compiler-rt test). Now, it's a cheat because I'm fixing test, not adding
>>>>>>>>> it. However, I would have definitely added it, if it was missing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, I think the difference here is "if it was missing" - the
>>>>>>>> test case itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other
>>>>>>>> tests of the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt
>>>>>>>> functionality is the implementation of sadd/ssub?))
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In this case, a change to Clang
>>>>>>>>> instrumentation (arguments passed to UBSan runtime callbacks)
>>>>>>>>> improved the user-facing part of the tool, and compiler-rt test suite is a
>>>>>>>>> good place to verify that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This seems like the problematic part - changes to LLVM improve the
>>>>>>>> user-facing part of Clang, but we don't add end-to-end tests of that, as a
>>>>>>>> general rule. I'm trying to understand why the difference between that and
>>>>>>>> compiler-rt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In what way do changes in LLVM change the user-facing part of Clang?
>>>>>>> It obviously depends on how broadly one defines user-facing. Is a 1%
>>>>>>> performance improvement from a particular optimization user-facing? Is
>>>>>>> better debug info accuracy user-facing? I'm not sure. But it seems clear
>>>>>>> that "the user sees a diagnostic or not" definitely is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's more than just performance in LLVM - ABI features, and yes,
>>>>>> I'd argue some pieces of debug info are pretty user facing (as are some
>>>>>> optimizations). We also have the remarks system in place now. (also the
>>>>>> compiler crashing (or not) is pretty user facing).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd argue that we probably should have some sort of integration tests
>>>>> for ABI features. I think at the moment we're getting by thanks to
>>>>> self-hosting and regularly building lots of real-world programs with
>>>>> ToT-ish compilers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps so, but I'd argue that they shouldn't be run as part of "make
>>>> check" & should be in a separate test grouping (probably mostly run by
>>>> buildbots) for the purpose of integration testing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you have llvm/clang/compiler-rt/libc++/libc++abi checkout, they are
>>> not run as a part of "make check", only "make check-all", which kind of
>>> makes sense (run *all* the tests!). You're free to run "make check-clang",
>>> "make check-asan" etc.
>>> if you're sure your changes are limited in scope. Just to be clear - do
>>> you suggest that compiler-rt tests are too heavy for this configuration,
>>> and want to introduce extra level - i.e. extract "make check-compiler-rt"
>>> out of "make check-all", and introduce "make check-absolutely-everything",
>>> that would encompass them?
>>>
>>
>> Fair point, check-all would be/is check all the features, but, yes,
>> potentially pulling out a separate subgroup for integration testing of any
>> kind. Yes, I realize this has the "-Wall" problem. But I suppose what I'm
>> getting at is "check" in the LLVM project parlance is, with the exception
>> of compiler-rt, the "lightweight, immediate verification tests, not
>> integration testing" & I would rather like that to be the case across the
>> board.
>>
>> Perhaps using a different verb for cross-project testing (I don't object
>> to a catch-all target for running all the different kinds of testing we
>> have). Naming is hard.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> We've made a pretty conscious, deliberate, and consistent effort to not
>>>> do integration testing across the LLVM projects in "make check"-like
>>>> testing, and to fix it where we do find it. It seems to me that compiler-rt
>>>> diverged from that approach and I'm not really in favor of that divergence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see why consistency by itself is a good thing.
>>>
>>
>> Makes it easier to work between projects. Sets expectations for
>> developers when they work in one area or another.
>>
>>
>>> As a sanitizer developer, current situation is convenient for me, but if
>>> it harms / slows down / complicates workflow for other developers or LLVM
>>> as a whole - sure, let's fix it.
>>>
>>
>> One of the things I'm trying to understand is what the benefit of this
>> extra testing is - to take the add/sub example again, is adding extra
>> coverage for printing different text through the same mechanism in
>> compiler-rt valuable? What sort of regressions/bugs is that catching that
>> makes it compelling to author, maintain, and incur the ongoing execution
>> cost of?
>>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I think part of this is that in compiler-rt there are usually
>>>>>>> more moving parts we don't control. E.g. it isn't just the interface
>>>>>>> between LLVM and clang. The information needs to pass through archivers,
>>>>>>> linkers, runtime loaders, etc. that all may have issues that affect whether
>>>>>>> the user sees the final result. In general the interface between LLVM and
>>>>>>> clang has no middlemen so there really isn't anything to check.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correctness/behavior of the compiler depends on those things too
>>>>>> (linkers, loaders, etc) to produce the final working product the user
>>>>>> requested. If we emitted symbols with the wrong linkage we could produce
>>>>>> linker errors, drop important entities, etc. But we don't generally test
>>>>>> that the output of LLVM/Clang produces the right binary when linked, we
>>>>>> test that it produces the right linkages on the resulting entities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You may argue that Clang test would have been enough (I disagree
>>>>>>>>> with that), or that it qualifies as "adding coverage" (maybe).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (4) True, we're intimidated by test-suite :) I feel that current
>>>>>>>>>>> use of compiler-rt test suite to check compiler-rt libs better follows
>>>>>>>>>>> the doctrine described by David.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which David? ;) (I guess David Li, not me)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, paragraph 2 from your original email.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think maybe what could be worth doing would be separating out
>>>>>>>>>> the broader/intentionally "end to end" sort of tests from the ones intended
>>>>>>>>>> to test compiler-rt in relative isolation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's really hard to draw the line here, even some of compiler-rt
>>>>>>>>> unit tests require instrumentation, therefore depend on new features of
>>>>>>>>> Clang/LLVM. Unlike builtins, which are
>>>>>>>>> trivial to test in isolation, testing sanitizer runtimes in
>>>>>>>>> isolation (w/o compiler) is often hard to implement (we tried to do so for
>>>>>>>>> TSan, but found unit tests extremely hard to write),
>>>>>>>>> and is barely useful - compiler-rt runtimes don't consist of
>>>>>>>>> modules (like LLVMCodeGen and LLVMMC for instance), and are never used w/o
>>>>>>>>> the compiler anyway.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Most importantly, I'd expect only the latter to run in a "make
>>>>>>>>>> check-all" run, as we do for Clang/LLVM, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And now we're getting to the goals :) Why would such a change be
>>>>>>>>> good? Do you worry about the time it takes to execute the test suite?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, there's significant complexity in compiler-rt test suite
>>>>>>>>>>> that narrows the tests executed
>>>>>>>>>>> to those supported by current host.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Xinliang David Li via cfe-dev <
>>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev <
>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Blaikie via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Recently had a bit of a digression in a review thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> related to some tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > going in to compiler-rt (
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20160208/330759.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > ) and there seems to be some disconnect at least between my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expectations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > and reality. So I figured I'd have a bit of a discussion out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > dev lists where there's a bit more visibility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > My basic expectation is that the lit tests in any LLVM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> project except the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > test-suite are targeted tests intended to test only the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the project. This seems like a pretty well accepted doctrine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> across most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > LLVM projects - most visibly in Clang, where we make a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerted effort not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > to have tests that execute LLVM optimizations, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There are exceptions/middle ground to this - DIBuilder is in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LLVM, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > essentially tested in Clang rather than writing LLVM unit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > somewhat unavoidable that any of the IR building code
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (IRBuilder,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > DIBuilder, IR asm printing, etc) is 'tested' incidentally in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clang in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > process of testing Clang's IR generation. But these are seen
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as incidental,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > not intentionally trying to cover LLVM with Clang tests (we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't add a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Clang test if we add a new feature to IRBuilder just to test
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IRBuilder).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Another case with some middle ground are things like linker
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > objdump, dwarfdump, etc - in theory to isolate the test we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would checkin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > binaries (or the textual object representation lld had for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> while, etc) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > test those tools. Some tests instead checkin assembly and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assemble it with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > llvm-mc. Again, not to cover llvm-mc, but on the assumption
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that llvm-mc is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > tested, and just using it as a tool to make tests easier to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > So I was surprised to find that the compiler-rt lit tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to diverge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > from this philosophy & contain more intentional end-to-end
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests (eg:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > adding a test there when making a fix to Clang to add a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > function that was otherwise missing a counter - I'd expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > tested in Clang and that there would already be coverage in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler-rt for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > "if a function has a counter, does compiler-rt do the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing with that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > counter" (testing whatever code in compiler-rt needs to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tested)).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Am I off base here? Are compiler-rt's tests fundamentally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > rest of the LLVM project? Why? Should they continue to be?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think there's a bit of grey area in terms testing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally it's pretty hard to use the runtime without a fairly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> end-to-end test, so tests of the runtime often end up looking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> close to an end-to-end test.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I don't think that should be used as an excuse to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sneak
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary end-to-end tests into compiler-rt. We should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely write
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests in clang and llvm that we're inputting what we expect to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime and try to keep the tests in compiler-rt as focused on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exercising the runtime code as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we should not use compiler-rt tests as an excuse of not
>>>>>>>>>>>> adding clang/LLVM test. The latter should always be added if possible --
>>>>>>>>>>>> they are platform independent and is the first level of defense.  runtime
>>>>>>>>>>>> test's focus is also more on the runtime lib itself and interaction between
>>>>>>>>>>>>  runtime, compiler, binutils and other tools.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IIUC, the correct place for integration tests in general is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like test-suite, but I think it's a bit intimidating to some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> add new tests there (Are there docs on this?). I suspect some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> profiling related tests in compiler-rt are doing a bit much
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> graduate to a spot in the test-suite (but I don't have time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do the work, unfortunately).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Alexey Samsonov
>>>>>>>>>>> vonosmas at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Alexey Samsonov
>>>>>>>>> vonosmas at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alexey Samsonov
>>> vonosmas at gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160226/c3e9d906/attachment-0001.html>