> Are you saying we should better not do unit testing at the moment? (This is
> perfectly fine with me, I am just verifying what you said)
Yes, I think we should better not to do it. It seems that unit-testing
isn't supported in gcc.
> If we don't have a convenient way to do unit-testing, we need to do testing
> for larger programs (at least empty loop bodies). This is what we did
> previously and even though not ideal should work as well.
I agree that generation of loops with empty bodies is required
functionality for testing (I wrote about this in previous message.
Sorry for being unclear.)
> I did not fully understand them. Are you comparing the resulting GIMPLE
> trees or are you statically evaluating the isl and gimple trees to check
> if the computed value is the same?
I'm statically evaluating gimple tree expressions, which are generated
from isl ast expressions. After this the result of the evaluation is
being compared with assumed result. I haven't found functions, which
evaluate isl ast expressions. That is why it compares results of
evaluations with assumed result. Maybe there is a better way to
compare the semantics of the GCC and isl expressions.
--
Cheers, Roman Gareev
