Menu
▾
▴
Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests
|
From: Nicklas Bo J. <nbj...@gm...> - 2012-05-24 14:21:04
|
I agree. FileCheck should be able to ignore comments(at least as a
parameter) like it ignores whitespaces.
However I do have a few suggestions for how to do it, if you like one of
them we can use it.
1. Previous suggestion with "hardcoded" comment.
2. Accept any comment after label:
define void @return_void() {
; CHECK: return_void:{{[a-zA-Z0-9 #@]*}}
; CHECK-NEXT: #{{[a-zA-Z0-9 #@]*}}
; CHECK-NEXT: ret
ret void
}
3. Strip the assembler for comments and blank lines(here using sed) before
checking.
; RUN: llc < %s -march=avr | sed "s/#.*//" | sed "/^$/d" | FileCheck %s
define void @return_void() {
; CHECK: return_void:
; CHECK-NEXT: ret
ret void
}
2. is a bit complex and if we later choose to not print comments before
blocks the test will fail.
3. is simpler, but requires a third party tool.
What do you think Borja? I haven't found another backend dealing with this
issue.
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
> I like it but checking for BB#0 is a bit nasty because it's a comment and
> not an instruction, also that could change in the future breaking the test.
>
> I've checked the other backends and we're testing things further than what
> others do so I think there's no need for more tests there.
>
>
> 2012/5/24 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>
>> One idea could be to use CHECK-NEXT that checks if the string is on a
>> consecutive line, then we could do something like:
>>
>> define void @return_void() {
>> ; CHECK: return_void:
>> ; CHECK-NEXT: # BB#0:
>> ; CHECK-NEXT: ret
>> ret void
>> }
>>
>> The solution with the comment is not the best. What do you think?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe you could check using CHECKNOT or whatever to make sure that no
>>> moves are emitted, that would cover it.
>>>
>>> I'll check what other backends do regarding these tests and see if I can
>>> come up with further things.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/5/23 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>
>>>> Are the following tests obsolete, as there in my opinion is no really
>>>> good way to test them using FileCheck(with my current return
>>>> tests(included) we could return the wrong argument)?
>>>>
>>>> - Returning void.
>>>> - Returning the first parameter, which is already in the correct
>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do we need additional tests for returning, besides
>>>> returning immediate and argument, like returning a value from register or
>>>> is it already covered in returning a argument?
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's something handled by llvm, not the backend so we can't do
>>>>> too much there, although it would be a nice optimization to do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/5/23 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the explanation. It's clear :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Out of curiosity, why are the pushes and pops in the example below?
>>>>>> movw leaves r17:r14 unchanged. Do we simply push and pop all registers to
>>>>>> be on the safe side and limited static analysis?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> llvm:
>>>>>> define i32 @return32_arg2(i32 %x, i32 %y, i32 %z) {
>>>>>> ret i32 %z
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> asm:
>>>>>> return32_arg2:
>>>>>> push r14
>>>>>> push r15
>>>>>> push r16
>>>>>> push r17
>>>>>> movw r23:r22, r15:r14
>>>>>> movw r25:r24, r17:r16
>>>>>> pop r17
>>>>>> pop r16
>>>>>> pop r15
>>>>>> pop r14
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here you have a link that explains how registers are used:
>>>>>>> www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/user-manual/FAQ.html#faq_reg_usage
>>>>>>> Testing a calling convention without knowing how it actually works
>>>>>>> is going to be an insane task to do xD
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> About your question, when you read that link all will become clear
>>>>>>> but basically here is what's going on. Arguments are passed from r25 down
>>>>>>> to r8, since in this case three 64bit args can't fit in those registers the
>>>>>>> last argument is passed through the stack, so you get:
>>>>>>> arg1 is in: r25-r18
>>>>>>> arg2 is in: r17-r10
>>>>>>> arg3 obviously doesn't fit in 2 register so it's all passed through
>>>>>>> the stack, thats why you get those loads. Notice that the lowest part of
>>>>>>> the argument is in Y+5 because in +4 and +3 is r29:r28 you just pushed and
>>>>>>> in +2 +1 is the the return address that was pushed into the stack after the
>>>>>>> call was performed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another thing, you should add checks on the pushes and pops for the
>>>>>>> callee saved registers so we're sure that they're being saved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/5/22 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perfect :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm moving on to calling convention and have started with return
>>>>>>>> values. However I'm a bit unsure what the calling convention actually is.
>>>>>>>> For example with my last test, called "return64_arg2" in the attached .ll
>>>>>>>> file and the generated assembly in the .s file, is the correct thing
>>>>>>>> happening and how it should be tested? Couldn't we have passed the
>>>>>>>> arguments in the normal registers? I.e. r25:r2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the arguments don't fit in the registers, do we always store the
>>>>>>>> result in the same place in ram?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nice, so now you have the same test failures as me, they are
>>>>>>>>> caused because we're using custom address space stuff in clang, dont worry
>>>>>>>>> about those. Basically they fail because these tests are writing into
>>>>>>>>> address space 1 which is flash data and that is forbidden in our target
>>>>>>>>> (remember flash memory is readonly).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The test cases you just commited look great :) To which ones are
>>>>>>>>> you going to move on next?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that code looks correct, where is the problem?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/21 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is the following generated code correct:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LLVM:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> define i8 @return8_arg(i8 %x) {
>>>>>>>>>> ret i8 %x
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Generated:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> return8_arg:
>>>>>>>>>> ret
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Something similar in .c compiling with avr-gcc gives a few
>>>>>>>>>> pushes, loads and pops.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Nicklas Bo Jensen <
>>>>>>>>>> nbj...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When adding those targets I only have 10 unexpected failures:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Clang :: CodeGen/address-space-compound-literal.c
>>>>>>>>>>> Clang :: CodeGen/address-space-field1.c
>>>>>>>>>>> Clang :: CodeGen/address-space.c
>>>>>>>>>>> Clang :: CodeGenCXX/mangle-address-space.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>> Clang :: PCH/types.c
>>>>>>>>>>> Clang :: Sema/address_spaces.c
>>>>>>>>>>> Clang :: SemaCXX/address-space-conversion.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>> Clang :: SemaCXX/address-space-newdelete.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>> Clang :: SemaCXX/address-space-references.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>> Clang :: SemaTemplate/address-spaces.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I will try to run each test separately and try to figure out why
>>>>>>>>>>> they are failing. I have also attached the test output.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm also committing tests for and, or and xor in a minute. They
>>>>>>>>>>> are really simple and similar to the add and sub tests. Please review these
>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you try adding the x86 and x64 targets with the avr one?
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's something related with an unsopported target.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Good question, I think there's no need to do reg+imm for xor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Btw remember to add the SF mailing list so we can have a record
>>>>>>>>>>>> ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/14 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, that is the llvm+clang trunk gives me 13 unsupported
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests, i.e. no failures versus the avr-llvm giving me 280 unexpected
>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Nicklas Bo Jensen <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nbj...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the newest llvm and clang trunk only gives me 13
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unexpected failures compared to the the newest trunk with avr-llvm where i
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get 280 unexpected failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Considering the regression tests for xor, does it make sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to test reg+imm, as the avr assembler does not have xor for immediate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so, but I configured llvm to support both x86
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and x64, so maybe that could help, in fact I can't build clang if I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add support for x86.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/10 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I only configured for avr... Did I do something wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I'm getting:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expected Passes : 9914
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expected Failures : 66
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unsupported Tests : 569
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unexpected Failures: 11
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen in that file you attached that you're getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors because of the target triple, errors like:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error: unable to create target: 'No available targets are compatible with this triple, see -version for the available targets.'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error auto-selecting target for module 'No available targets are compatible with this triple, see -version for the available targets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I guess that's the reason, so what is your target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triple? do clang -v to get it, mine is i386-pc-linux-gnu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/10 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, I'll check it out tomorrow to see if I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find some reason behind this, because we're getting very different results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/9 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for my slow response.Got i working again now,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Building with optimization disabled and assertions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turned on i get:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Avr llvm+clang:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expected Passes : 6978
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expected Failures : 39
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unsupported Tests : 3281
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unexpected Failures: 279
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the 279 unexpected failures for example 143 of them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are test/CodeGen/Generic. I'm not really sure how these tests are supposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to work? None of them seems to be using FileCheck.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However building for msp430 seems to be giving me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar results, indicating that it is not a avr-llvm specific problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see the attached output "make check-all" from avr-llvm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
