Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests

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

Ok they look great now, I don't have any other objections. Please commit
this test to SVN, post your SF username here so that Eric or John can give
you commit permissions. Once it gets commited I'll check if I need to add
any pattern specific tests to it, these tests are corner cases of some
instructions.
Before commiting it, remove the testcases dir with all the files there, and
create a new one called test/CodeGen/AVR, and place your file there, just
to keep the same structure like in llvm's repo.

About the rest of tests to do, from that list remove mul and division for
now, mul isn't yet implemented and division can come later. Sub tests
should be very similar to add, then add binary ops (or, and, xor). Add
calling convention tests (argument passing through regs and stack, return
values for each value type, calls). Memory operations, etc...

There are quite a few tests to add, but for now do the sub and binary op
tests and we'll discuss the others by then.

2012/5/4 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>

> Hi,
>
> 1) Sure
> 2) Yes, I've followed the msp430 backend that does include it. I've
> removed it now.
> 3) Again, I've moved the CHECK lines, but it differs from backend to
> backend.
> 4) Done
> 5) Done
> 6) Done
>
> I will continue working other tests, which do we need? Something like(and
> please add/comment):
>
> -Sub
> -division(Only working for multiples of 2?)
> -mult
> -Return argument(In a few variants)
> -and
> -or
> -xor
> -increment
> -branching?
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Nicklas
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>