From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24120 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2012 10:41:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 24110 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Nov 2012 10:41:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,TW_KC,TW_LV X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-lb0-f175.google.com) (209.85.217.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:41:17 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f175.google.com with SMTP id gg13so7662397lbb.20 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 02:41:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.14.107 with SMTP id o11mr7896363lbc.98.1354099275626; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 02:41:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.135.105 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 02:40:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121128102445.GH2315@tucnak.redhat.com> References: <20121128102445.GH2315@tucnak.redhat.com> From: Konstantin Serebryany Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] asan unit tests from llvm lit-test To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Wei Mi , GCC Patches , David Li , Diego Novillo , Kostya Serebryany , Dodji Seketeli Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg02305.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:10:05PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: >> I'd like to understand our long-term strategy wrt the asan/tsan tests in gcc. >> Most of the tests we have today are not specific to the compiler and >> so can potentially be used with any compiler. >> The problem is the testing harness (FileCheck/gtest vs dejagnu). >> I understand that using alien testing harnesses in the gcc tree might >> be unacceptable, > > Yes, it is. > >> but the other choice is doubled maintenance burden for tests. > > There is no problem if somebody at google or elsewhere keeps running > say the llvm asan/tsan tests against gcc (but guess it needs to be adjusted > for that anyway, in the // RUN comments the tests are invoking > clang/clang++ etc., you'd need to either use a symlink clang -> gcc and > similar, or adjust comments), but we need some minimal testsuite inside of > gcc for the features, I fully agree about "minimal testsuite". But, for example, porting the asan's gtest test (2+ KLOC) to another harness is probably too much. --kcc >as GCC developers can't be required to run extra > testsuites and we need some way to ensure we don't regress, e.g. because of > an unrelated change etc. I guess changes to existing llvm tests can be > monitored from time to time and the corresponding tests in gcc adjusted, > and also new tests could be ported as time permits. > And once we have a working testsuite, generally all bugfixes/new features > for the compiler should be acompanied by testcases. > > Jakub