Dear Joachim, Many thanks for your prompt, positive and encouraging response.
Joachim Breitner (2017/10/30 13:44 -0400): > Hi Sebastien, > > I’m looking forward to your report, surely there will be some > interesting inspirations for us. Thanks. Unfortunately, the paper has been written in French. i'll see whether I can find the time to translate it into english soon. If I can do so I'll definitely post a link. > Am Montag, den 30.10.2017, 11:25 -0400 schrieb Edward Z. Yang: > > Actually, it's the reverse of what you said: like OCaml, GHC essentially > > has ~no unit tests; it's entirely Haskell programs which we compile > > (and sometimes run; a lot of tests are for the typechecker only so > > we don't bother running those.) The .T file is just a way of letting > > the Python driver know what tests exist. > > let me add that these tests rarely check the actual output of the > compiler (i.e. the program, or even the simplified code). Often it is > enough to check > * whether the compile succeeds or fails as expected, or maybe > * what messages the compiler prints. I see. I think it is quite similar for OCaml. > In a few cases we do dump the complete intermediate code (-ddump- > simpl), but then the test case specifies a “normalization function” > that checks the output for a certain property, e.g. by grepping for > certain patterns. Got it, thanks. We also have options to pretty-print the few internal representations we have, but as far as I know, we don't use any normalization function in such cases and just make a diff with an expected reference (yuk!). > The only real unit tests that I know of are these: > http://git.haskell.org/ghc.git/tree/HEAD:/testsuite/tests/callarity/unittest > These are effectively programs using “GHC-the-library” Okay, thanks! Will come back with a link ASAP! Sébastien. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users