On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:24:57AM +0000, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote: > Hi Luc, > > On 21 March 2017 at 00:15, Luc Van Oostenryck > <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This series solves a number of issues in sparse-llvm, > > mainly about wrong or missing type information as needed > > to build LLVM IR. > > > > > > llvm: add test cases for symbol's address > > llvm: add test cases for pointers passed as argument > > llvm: add test cases for arrays passed as argument > > llvm: add test cases for degenerated pointers > > llvm: add support for OP_NEG > > llvm: add support for OP_SETVAL with floats > > llvm: add support for OP_SETVAL with labels > > Thank you once again for posting this set of patches. I wanted to > understand what your approach is with testing of the LLVM backend in > general. The test cases that are currently present and also the new > ones you are adding do not appear to be runnable. Unless you are > saving expected LLVM IR output and comparing the test output with that > I think the tests do not prove that the generated code is correct. I'm not surprised at all that some of the test cases, new or old, are not runnable (I suppose that you mean that their execution produce wrong result). It's a bit too early for me to look closely at the generated code, there was simply too much input code that caused crashes, triggered some asserts or produced type error in the LLVM IR. And it's not like everything is now solved regarding this. For the next steps, yes, it would certainly be needed to have tests for the correctness of the generated code. And by 'tests' I mean 'test cases suitable and present in sparse's test suite'. I was somehow expecting you will submit them/somes as you seem quite interested in sparse/LLVM. -- Luc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
