On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Steve Reinhardt wrote:
> In general this sounds good... it seems like one issue that we're > touching on is that for many current tests we have a sparse matrix of > applicability: there are ISAs, configs (with and w/o ruby), OSes, etc. > It would be nice to specify a related set of tests concisely but it's > actually complex to precisely generate the set of tests since there > are a lot of exceptions. (That's what I was getting at with my > comment about using a dict.) > > The current scheme actually does that well, since there's no need to > redundantly list a test somewhere else once you've created the > reference directory. I think the idea of putting the SConscript file > directly in the reference dir is a good way of achieving the same > thing in a more elegant and robust way. Ideally you could simply use > '.' as the default reference dir for the Test function. If we make > that the canonical way of adding a test, then maybe we don't need to > build up any standard structure (or "convenience stuff" as you put it) > for doing it in more complex ways. You could still build more complex > structures (e.g., maybe you'd need to if you wanted to define > inter-test dependencies), but we wouldn't have as much need to design > explicit mechanisms for that. One thing I would like to see is a test system that can scale to maybe ~10,000 test cases. I don't want to have a SConscript (I have no idea how long it would take SCons to parse all the files, but I'm guessing in wouldn't be quick) for each one, and even a directory structure seems to be overkill. Ali _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
