Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests

[Borja F. <bor...@gm...>]

Obviously in the last line I meant adiw or subi/sbci pair, add for
immediates doesn't exist for imms greater than 63

2012/5/2 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>

> They look good, very nice :)
>
> Some small details and nitpicks:
>
> 1) I think it's not necessary to add the reg_reg_imm variant because you
> covered it with the other two tests.
> 2) Do the tests work if you remove the target triple line? I've seen other
> backends don't include it.
> 3) Move the CHECK lines after the function prototype like other backends
> do.
> 4) In every CHECK line, can you remove the tabs between the instr mnemonic
> and the first operand and add a single space? (I'm unsure about this
> because i dont know if CHECK eats spaces). Also for the future, the llvm
> coding standards says to config your editor to replace tabs with spaces, so
> it's a good moment time to do it.
> 5) Oh and the most important one, please add this in only one file, add.ll
> or something like that, so we can keep this convention in the future,
> otherwise we'll end having too many test files.
>
> Something that should be covered is, when doing 16 bit additions we can
> use adiw or add depending on the imm value, can you cover this aswell?
>
>
> 2012/5/1 John Myers <ato...@gm...>
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have successfully been able to compile your testcases
>>> (/avr-llvm/testcases/*.ll) to something looking like valid avr assembler.
>>>
>>> How should I test/simulate the assembler? I get errors when trying to
>>> simulate the generated assembler in AVRStudio. Perhaps they use a different
>>> assembler?
>>>
>>> avr-llvm produces GNU assembler syntax, which is different then the
>> Atmel assembler syntax.
>>
>> Eventually we could support multiple asm syntax's like the X86 target
>> does.
>>
>
>