On 3/13/06, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > > There are no serious quickchecks in the testsuite. I found just > one > | > > entry that didn't test the standard libraries: "prop_silly xs = > head > | > > xs == head xs". Now how can that be when QuickCheck is so > incredibly > | > > useful? > | > > | > look in lib/Concurrent, eg. Chan001, MVar001. > | > | Those aren't GHC tests. They test the standard library. > > It's possible that there's a misunderstanding here. > > The testsuite tests GHC as a *black box*; all you can do is invoke it, > giving lots of different Haskell programs as input, which is what the > testsuite does. In principle, it would also be possible to write > Quickcheck tests for particular functions inside GHC. For example, the > UniqFM data types could have a lot of Quickcheck tests; and one could > imagine many, many more. These tests can't obviously be done by running > the GHC binary. Instead, one would need to link *part* of GHC with the > test program, and run the test program as 'main'. We don't have any > 'make' technology to do that yet. > > If Lemmih has this in mind (and perhaps it is -- you say "I want to test > the core of GHC"), then maybe ghc/tests is the right place. But if you > have in mind black-box tests of the compiled binary, then I agree that > fptools/testsuite is the right place (perhaps using Quickcheck as the > technology).
Yes, exactly. I want to test the GHC library, not the GHC binary. > Anyway, I thought it'd be good to get clear what you are trying to do, > perhaps with a couple of examples. The test set is currently testing: * that all extensions (from Language.Haskell.Extension) are parsed correctly, and * that (options == getOptions (mkPragma options)) holds true. Such tests are _very_ helpful but, as you said, don't easily fit in with the black-box tests in the testsuite. -- Friendly, Lemmih _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
