Dave,
The idea to check explicitly the triple inside the test function is quite
convincing. Will you try to fix it that way? Or if it can wait a bit, this
will be my first thing to do on Monday.
Gábor
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019, 19:39 David Green <david.gr...@arm.com wrote:
> Hello
>
>
> I think, because this is a unit-test, the compile will happen for the host
> (x86_64 in this case). So the binary will still be x86_64.
>
>
> The compile that the test runs will pick up whatever the default target
> triple is (hexagon for the bot, aarch64 for us). I don't know a lot about
> these tests, but I presume that somewhere deep within testStructuralMatch
> or makeNamedDecls it will be picking this up and we can override it?
>
>
> ..
>
>
> Looking at it now, I think the Args to buildASTFromCodeWithArgs will
> allow specific targets to be used. I'm not sure the best way to get that
> information through to there, but something like this would work:
>
>
> diff --git a/unittests/AST/StructuralEquivalenceTest.cpp
> b/unittests/AST/StructuralEquivalenceTest.c
> index e6c289a..52dba5e 100644
> --- a/unittests/AST/StructuralEquivalenceTest.cpp
> +++ b/unittests/AST/StructuralEquivalenceTest.cpp
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ struct StructuralEquivalenceTest : ::testing::Test {
> this->Code0 = SrcCode0;
> this->Code1 = SrcCode1;
> ArgVector Args = getBasicRunOptionsForLanguage(Lang);
> + Args.push_back("--target=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu");
>
> const char *const InputFileName = "input.cc";
>
>
> I wouldn't recommend that, exactly, it would needlessly reduce the testing
> on other targets. And I think for the hexagon target the x86 backend will
> not even be registered I believe. Perhaps just something like this from
> another ASTMatchesNode test, to try and capture the same intent as the
> ifdefs:
>
> TEST_F(StructuralEquivalenceFunctionTest,
> FunctionsWithDifferentSavedRegsAttr) {
>
> if (llvm::Triple(llvm::sys::getDefaultTargetTriple()).getArch() !=
> llvm::Triple::x86_64)
> return;
> ...
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thank you for catching this. I thought that the macros like __x86_64__
> are defined for the target. I just don't understand: If they are defined
> for the host, > that would mean we can't cross compile on the same host
> for different targets, wouldn't it?
> >
> > I couldn't find out which macros to use to get the target arch, so I
> see 2 possible solutions :
> > 1. Create a new test binary for these two small tests and specify
> explicitly the target. This seems overwhelming.
> > 2. Simply remove those two test cases. This seems to be the simplest
> solution.
> >
> > Gábor
>
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
