Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests

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

Nevermind, got it.

2012/5/4 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>

> Thanks!
>
> One thing, i dont have llvm-lit in that dir, am I supposed to build llvm
> with an addtional param or something in order to get it?
>
>
> 2012/5/4 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>
>> Ok, I've committed now. To only run the AVR specific tests run something
>> like:
>>
>> ./build/Debug+Asserts/bin/llvm-lit llvm/test/CodeGen/AVR/
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>