One issue that is preventing me from running the unit tests is that they
require separate scons targets. One solution that I was considering at
one point was to make the unit tests available as Python exports in the
main build. This would allow us to run a magic config that calls unit
tests instead of running the simulator proper. I think it would work for
all(?) current unit tests, but I don't know how it would interact with
other test unit test frameworks.
Cheers,
Andreas
On 21/11/2017 01:37, Gabe Black wrote:
What I would minimally like to see is for people to run the unit tests that
already exist. Clearly that hasn't been happening since one of them hasn't
compiled since 2014 (now fixed). We need our tests to test something
specific, say whether or not it worked (not leave interpretation up to the
reader), and for people to actually run them.
It's not at all clear what to do to actually build the unit tests from
scons, or how to run them, or what their results mean. I'm going to try
cleaning these up a bit. Also, they shouldn't be something that lives off
on the side or in their own directory, out of sight and out of mind, they
should be alongside the code they test.
It might even make sense to associate a unit test with a particular source
file and make compilation fail if the unit test doesn't pass. That might be
a bit overboard, but would at least ensure that the tests get run.
Gabe
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Potter, Brandon <[email protected]>
wrote:
I also support adding unit tests (and possibly a code coverage checker to
identify weak points). Ideally, we'd add unit tests for the entire
simulator, but we should probably put something into place for new code
requiring some type of unit tests. Otherwise, only a subset of the
submissions will contain unit tests.
Regards,
Brandon
-----Original Message-----
From: gem5-dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason
Lowe-Power
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:22 AM
To: gem5 Developer List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] [EXT] Re: testing framework
I'm all for unit tests. GTest seems fine, but I'm not a huge fan of its
syntax. Although, that shouldn't stop us from having unit tests!!
What's the state of getting whimsy pushed in? From my side, it's ready to
go. The only thing on my to do list that I would have liked to finish up
before pushing is better integration with the current test infrastructure.
It would be good for whoever is running with the old test infrastructure
to be able to run both the old-style and new-style tests with one command.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to dig into this for the foreseeable
future.
Jason
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:19 PM Paul Rosenfeld (prosenfeld) <
[email protected]> wrote:
Even without the complexities of setting up SystemC+gem5 it's pretty
painful to "unit" test SystemC because the SystemC runtime has a lot
of global state that comes along with it (for example: you can't "uncall"
sc_start() to go back and re-do elaboration with different modules).
The only (not very elegant) workaround we have discussed for unit
testing SystemC modules is to just to build each set of related
SystemC unit tests into their own independent GTest binaries.
On the whole, though, GTest is pretty great.
-----Original Message-----
From: gem5-dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gabe
Black
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 5:51 PM
To: Matthias Jung <[email protected]>
Cc: gem5 Developer List <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [gem5-dev] testing framework
As far as a high level framework, I think whimsy should help there
since it's a bit more decoupled and will let you run arbitrary things
as tests, at least as far as I can tell. Since the systemC integration
is just that, an integration of two systems, I don't think unit tests
would be as applicable generally speaking. You could have one for some
things though, like the ports that translate between gem5's and
systemC's memory protocol.
GTest claims to be BSD, so the license should be compatible.
Gabe
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Matthias Jung <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hey,
It would be also nice if we have something that we could also use
for test the SystemC stuff. Right now this is not possible with the
current framework. Because we have to build gem5 without python as a
library for the SystemC stuff... and then build again with linking
of
the gem5 library.
Regards
Matthias
Am 17.11.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Andreas Sandberg <
[email protected]>:
I'm generally in favour of switching to an existing unit test
framework.
I haven't surveyed the C++ test framework landscape, but judging
by the users (Chromium, LLVM, ...) GTest seems pretty solid.
As far as I can tell, GTest is all BSD. Is that correct?
Cheers,
Andreas
On 16/11/2017 05:04, Gabe Black wrote:
Hi folks. How is the test framework integration coming along? Is
there anything I can do to help?
Also, looking at the whimsy documentation and talking to some
other
folks
at Google, it looks like the framework is good at running tests,
but doesn't itself really implement, for instance, unit tests
which have
their
own C++ main function, etc.
Does anyone have an opinion about using the google gtest library
for writing C++ unit tests? I've only worked with it a little bit
superficially, but so far it seems pretty nice and seems like it
would
fit
into whimsy fairly well.
Gabe
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments
are
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose
the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store
or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any
medium. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
