Anastasia added inline comments. ================ Comment at: test/Headers/opencl-c-header.cl:50 @@ +49,3 @@ +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -cc1 -triple spir-unknown-unknown -emit-llvm -o - -finclude-default-header -fmodules -fimplicit-module-maps -fmodules-cache-path=%t -fdisable-module-hash %s | FileCheck %s +// RUN: diff %t/1_0.pcm %t/opencl_c.pcm +// RUN: rm %t/opencl_c.pcm ---------------- yaxunl wrote: > Anastasia wrote: > > I see, but is diffing accurate here? Because if the file is regenerated but > > with exactly the same content it won't be caught... > It cannot detect if the file was re-written with the same content. > > There is one way we can do that: > get the modified time of the file > sleep 1 second > get the modified time of the file again and compare > > but it will slow down the test by 1 second. do we really want to do that? Not desirable to increase the testing time. I was wondering if we could amend the attribute of the file let's say run chmod on it? I guess if it's regenerated it would get default attributes again?
Otherwise, I would rather skip testing uniqueness, if we can't do it properly. We rely on the existing modules functionality anyways which is already being tested elsewhere. ================ Comment at: test/Headers/opencl-c-header.cl:70 @@ +69,3 @@ +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -cc1 -triple amdgcn--amdhsa -emit-llvm -o - -cl-std=CL2.0 -finclude-default-header -fmodules -fimplicit-module-maps -fmodules-cache-path=%t %s | FileCheck --check-prefix=CHECK20 %s +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -cc1 -triple spir-unknown-unknown -emit-llvm -o - -finclude-default-header -fmodules -fimplicit-module-maps -fmodules-cache-path=%t %s | FileCheck %s +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -cc1 -triple spir-unknown-unknown -emit-llvm -o - -cl-std=CL2.0 -finclude-default-header -fmodules -fimplicit-module-maps -fmodules-cache-path=%t %s | FileCheck --check-prefix=CHECK20 %s ---------------- yaxunl wrote: > Anastasia wrote: > > So in this line it will be regenerated because the line above used > > different triple? > No. It should use the cached module. Ok, but it doesn't seem like there is something different being tested to line 67. http://reviews.llvm.org/D20444 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
