Re: [RFC, v2] Test coverage for --param boundary values

2016-08-03 Thread Jeff Law
On 08/01/2016 06:02 AM, Martin Liška wrote: On 07/28/2016 11:26 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, Martin Liška wrote: Well, I can imaging a guard which will test whether "$objdir/../../params.options" file exits, and if so, then the tests are executed? Is it acceptable approach?

Re: [RFC, v2] Test coverage for --param boundary values

2016-08-01 Thread Martin Liška
On 07/28/2016 11:26 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, Martin Liška wrote: > >> Well, I can imaging a guard which will test whether >> "$objdir/../../params.options" file exits, and if so, then the tests are >> executed? Is it acceptable approach? > > The correct way to test for

Re: [RFC, v2] Test coverage for --param boundary values

2016-07-28 Thread Joseph Myers
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, Martin Liška wrote: > Well, I can imaging a guard which will test whether > "$objdir/../../params.options" file exits, and if so, then the tests are > executed? Is it acceptable approach? The correct way to test for build-tree testing is [info exists

Re: [RFC, v2] Test coverage for --param boundary values

2016-07-22 Thread Martin Liška
On 07/21/2016 08:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/18/2016 01:53 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> You are right, I was inspired by what we do for GCC plugins in: >> gcc/testsuite/lib/plugin-support.exp >> >> where we have following comment: >> # Note that the plugin test support currently only works

Re: [RFC, v2] Test coverage for --param boundary values

2016-07-21 Thread Jeff Law
On 07/18/2016 01:53 AM, Martin Liška wrote: You are right, I was inspired by what we do for GCC plugins in: gcc/testsuite/lib/plugin-support.exp where we have following comment: # Note that the plugin test support currently only works when the GCC # build tree is available. (We make

Re: [RFC, v2] Test coverage for --param boundary values

2016-07-18 Thread Martin Liška
On 07/15/2016 09:22 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:47:46 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: >> From f84ce7be4a998089541fb4512e19f54a4ec25cf6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: marxin >> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:59:24 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH]

Re: [RFC, v2] Test coverage for --param boundary values

2016-07-15 Thread Andreas Schwab
Martin Liška writes: > This is my second attempt of the patch where I generate all tests on fly. > Firstly, params-options.h is used to generate a list of options in form of: > > "predictable-branch-outcome"=2,0,50 > "inline-min-speedup"=10,0,0 > "max-inline-insns-single"=400,0,0

Re: [RFC, v2] Test coverage for --param boundary values

2016-07-15 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:47:46 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > From f84ce7be4a998089541fb4512e19f54a4ec25cf6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: marxin > Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:59:24 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] Add tests that test boundary values of params This became

Re: [RFC, v2] Test coverage for --param boundary values

2016-07-12 Thread Martin Liška
On 07/11/2016 04:48 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > Seems reasonable to me -- OK for the trunk, but please be on the lookout for > these tests failing on other targets. > > jeff Thanks, the patch also works on a ppc64le-linux-gnu system. I'm going to install the patch after I'll install fix for:

Re: [RFC, v2] Test coverage for --param boundary values

2016-07-11 Thread Jeff Law
On 07/08/2016 06:47 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Hi. This is my second attempt of the patch where I generate all tests on fly. Firstly, params-options.h is used to generate a list of options in form of: "predictable-branch-outcome"=2,0,50 "inline-min-speedup"=10,0,0

Re: [RFC, v2] Test coverage for --param boundary values

2016-07-08 Thread Martin Liška
Hi. This is my second attempt of the patch where I generate all tests on fly. Firstly, params-options.h is used to generate a list of options in form of: "predictable-branch-outcome"=2,0,50 "inline-min-speedup"=10,0,0 "max-inline-insns-single"=400,0,0 ... The list is then loaded in params.ext