On May 31, 2011, at 12:05 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Galina Kistanova <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Preparations for separating target-specific clang tests.
>>>
>>> What's the intended use of this? What problem are you solving? We
>>> already have the ability to use target-specific triples in tests.
>>
>> I assume this is intended to fix cases where clang tests try to
>> generate x86 code... we have maybe 50 or so clang tests which do that.
>> If you try to build without the x86 backend (e.g. on ARM), the tests
>> fail with "error: unable to create target: 'No available targets are
>> compatible with this triple, see -version for the available
>> targets.'". See
>> http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9 .
>
> Any reason something like XTARGET won't work here? I'm not terribly
> familiar with how that's implemented I admit, it just seems nicer than
> a whole separate tree.
>
> Also, I thought these tests were essentially on the way out in favor
> of directly testing the LLVM IR whenever possible. I can imagine a few
> needing to remain, but hopefully few enough to make a whole separate
> tree unnecessary... But maybe I'm just not thinking of the particular
> architecture-specific things needing testing.
We do prefer to use architecture-independent IR for our tests wherever
possible, and have tried to replace assembly-checking tests with IR tests
whenever possible.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
