Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests

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

Oh a small one I've just noticed, leave only 1 newline between tests not 2.

2012/5/4 Borja Ferrer <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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>