On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I agree with Eric, I don't think that serializing the structure to
> std::cout is the right way to handle this.
>
> What were you thinking of mocking? Wouldn't you really end up mocking the
>
I agree with Eric, I don't think that serializing the structure to
std::cout is the right way to handle this.
What were you thinking of mocking? Wouldn't you really end up mocking the
entire backend?
That is the small wrinkle with the way that we deal with inline assembly.
It really doesn't mesh
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 5:56 AM Hal Finkel wrote:
>
> On 01/05/2017 08:30 PM, Eric Christopher via cfe-commits wrote:
>
> Ok, thanks. I agree that it's a problem. I'm definitely open for testing
> ideas here. There are a few other things in the
> TargetOptions/MCTargetOptions area that are already
On 01/05/2017 08:30 PM, Eric Christopher via cfe-commits wrote:
Ok, thanks. I agree that it's a problem. I'm definitely open for
testing ideas here. There are a few other things in the
TargetOptions/MCTargetOptions area that are already problematic to test.
I think that we need to add seriali
Thanks!
-eric
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:38 PM Saleem Abdulrasool
wrote:
> SVN r291208
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Eric Christopher
> wrote:
>
> Ok, thanks. I agree that it's a problem. I'm definitely open for testing
> ideas here. There are a few other things in the
> TargetOptions/MCTa
SVN r291208
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
> Ok, thanks. I agree that it's a problem. I'm definitely open for testing
> ideas here. There are a few other things in the
> TargetOptions/MCTargetOptions area that are already problematic to test.
>
> -eric
>
> On Thu, Jan 5,
Ok, thanks. I agree that it's a problem. I'm definitely open for testing
ideas here. There are a few other things in the
TargetOptions/MCTargetOptions area that are already problematic to test.
-eric
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:27 PM Saleem Abdulrasool
wrote:
> This was certainly the problem that
This was certainly the problem that I had. The test really needs a way to
check that the field was set. As you state, this is a problematic area.
The backend already has a test to ensure that the paths are honored, but, I
didn't see any way to actually ensure that it was getting sent to the
backe
Hi Saleem,
Love that you wanted to add a test for it, but I'd really prefer that you
not engage the backend here in order to do it. You can verify some of it
from the backend and just that the module is correct via the front end if
you'd like. Ensuring the paths are correct is a bit of a sticky pr
Author: compnerd
Date: Thu Jan 5 10:02:32 2017
New Revision: 291123
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=291123&view=rev
Log:
CodeGen: plumb header search down to the IAS
inline assembly may use the `.include` directive to include other
content into the file. Without the integrated asse
10 matches
Mail list logo