Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests

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

I'm asking because last week you said that you were getting +200 fails, and
since I'm getting 11 I wanted to know what's going on.

faluco is me btw, I updated a patch today because I got a conflict when
updating my clang repo. These variables are defined in
DiagnosticSemaKinds.td so check that you have them, they come from the
flash.diff patch.

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

> The new tests should pass. I cannot check other tests now, I'm having some
> issues after applying the newest patches that came in today by faluco:
>
> /home/nicklas/install/avr-llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:4374:38:
> error:
>       no member named 'err_flash_variable_requires_const' in namespace
>       'clang::diag'
>     Diag(NewVD->getLocation(), diag::err_flash_variable_requires_const);
>                                ~~~~~~^
> /home/nicklas/install/avr-llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:4383:38:
> error:
>       no member named 'err_flash_pointer_requires_const' in namespace
>       'clang::diag'
>     Diag(NewVD->getLocation(), diag::err_flash_pointer_requires_const);
>                                ~~~~~~^
> /home/nicklas/install/avr-llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:7208:25:
> error:
>       no member named 'err_flash_pointer_requires_const' in namespace
>       'clang::diag'
>     Diag(NameLoc, diag::err_flash_pointer_requires_const);
>                   ~~~~~~^
> Have i done something wrong?
>
> Thanks,
> Nicklas
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>
>> How many tests failures are you getting now?
>> I'm getting 11, 10 from clang due to address space stuff (you'll need to
>> patch clang to get those) and 1 from llvm.
>>
>>
>> 2012/5/4 Nicklas Bo Jensen <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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>