On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > > Can you please review the attached patch and suggest how to make it > better if needed? > See also http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12574 > > Questions: > 1) It was tested only on simple class constructor/destructor, without > inheritance etc. > However, since the code was broken before, supporting at least a > simple case sounds like a win anyways. > I'm not sure how to make a more general solution at the moment. > [FTR: the idea of the extra conditions was taken from Dmitry's patch > for Microsoft C++ ABI support] > > 2) How should I test that apps built with "-cxx-abi microsoft" actually work? > I've written a short "smoke" test that runs the resultant .exe but > it won't work on Linux. > For me, it has required a few hacks to work on Windows too [e.g. set > LIB env in the lit.cfg]. > I don't think the test I wrote is a good solution... > Alternative suggestions are welcome! > For example, I can re-make the test as a compile-only test just to > ensure we don't have infinite loops anymore.
We don't generally have execution tests in the regression suite as far as I know. The Clang regression test should simply verify that the emitted LLVM bitcode is correct (using filecheck - see other codegen tests for examples, I expect). You could check for particular features that indicate the infinite loop bug that previously existed. - David > > Thanks! > Timur Iskhodzhanov, > Google Russia > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
