On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Dibyendu Majumdar
<mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yes. I have a growing set of tests but I only check the final result
> is correct - i.e. the code can be run (both with and without
> simplifications) and will produce expected results.
While I'm all in favour of such tests, I also think that at the current
stage of sparse's development, such tests are not what we
need because:
1) to be able to run/execute the code you need a whole machinery
we don't have yet
2) they are dependent on implementation details, kinda architecture/
machine specific
3) they are dependent on the correctness of the backend used
4) they are dependent on run-time support (like printf()
implementation, for example.
4) they don't help at all to debug
So, this kind of tests makes a lot of sense to you because you're
developing a backend. They will certainly be useful later if/when
sparse will have a backend. But currently, small, specific, more
unit-like tests are much more useful to me.
-- 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
