Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests

[Nicklas Bo J. <nbj...@gm...>]

Ah, perfect.

I would actually guess that you need to run "make check-all" before being
able to test new tests individually. Sorry :)

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...> wrote:

> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>