[llvm-dev] Multiple documents in one test file (original) (raw)

Michael Kruse via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jul 20 14:07:14 PDT 2020

The clang has a clang-offload-bundle tool that can combine and extract multiple IR modules in/from a single file. Implementation is here: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/clang/tools/clang-offload-bundler/ClangOffloadBundler.cpp

Michael

Am Mo., 13. Juli 2020 um 20:17 Uhr schrieb Fangrui Song via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:

Sometimes it is convenient if we can specify multiple independent tests in one file. To give an example, let's discuss test/MC/ELF/debug-md5.s and test/MC/ELF/debug-md5-err.s (.file directive in the assembler). a) An invalid .file makes the whole file invalid. Because errors lead to a non-zero exit code, We have to use RUN: not llvm-mc %s for the whole file. This often lead to users placing good (RUN: llvm-mc %s) and bad tests (RUN:_ _not llvm-mc %s) separately. For some features, having both good and bad tests in one file may improve readability. b) .debugline is a global resource. Whenever we add a (valid) .file, we contribute an entry to the global resource. If we want to test some characteristics when includedirectories[0] is A, and other characteristics when includedirectories[0] is B, we have to use another test file. The arguments apply to many other types of tests (opt on .ll, llc on .ll and .mir, clang on .c, yaml2obj on .yaml, etc). I have a patch teaching llvm-mc about an option to split input: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83725 (30+ lines) In a comment, Richard Smith mentioned whether we can add a separate extractor utility: _ _# RUN: extract bb %s | llvm-mc - 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=BB_ _or_ _# RUN: extract bb %s -o %t.bb_ _# RUN: llvm-mc %t.bb 2>&1 | FileCheck %t.bb_ _ The advantage is its versatility. The downside is somewhat verbose syntax.

Some questoms: 1. What do people think of the two approaches? An in-utility option vs a standalone utility. 2. For llvm-mc, if we go with an option, is there a better name than --doc-id? David Blaikie proposed --asm-id (This is my personal preference, trading 30+ lines in a utility for simpler syntax) 3. If we add a standalone utility, how shall we name it? (Note that llvm-extract exists, but people can probably distinguish 'extract' from llvm-extract

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list