-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.4k
[NFC] Reduce number of run steps in ppc rop-protect test. #139607
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[NFC] Reduce number of run steps in ppc rop-protect test. #139607
Conversation
Test was running both -mcpu=pwrN and -mcpu=powerN compile steps for power N = 8, 9 and 10. Reduce to one run step for each form using power8 for one instance and power 10 for the other.
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-driver Author: Sean Fertile (mandlebug) ChangesTest was running both -mcpu=pwrN and -mcpu=powerN compile steps for power N = 8, 9 and 10. Reduce to one run step for each form using power8 for one instance and power 10 for the other. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139607.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c b/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c
index 50eaef3ed770b..541dc2bf99c3f 100644
--- a/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c
+++ b/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c
@@ -1,20 +1,10 @@
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=pwr10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN: -mcpu=power10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN: -mcpu=pwr9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN: -mcpu=power9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN: -mcpu=pwr8 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=power8 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=pwr7 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NOROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN: -mcpu=power7 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NOROP
#ifdef __ROP_PROTECT__
static_assert(false, "ROP Protect enabled");
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Sean Fertile (mandlebug) ChangesTest was running both -mcpu=pwrN and -mcpu=powerN compile steps for power N = 8, 9 and 10. Reduce to one run step for each form using power8 for one instance and power 10 for the other. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139607.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c b/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c
index 50eaef3ed770b..541dc2bf99c3f 100644
--- a/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c
+++ b/clang/test/Driver/ppc-mrop-protection-support-check.c
@@ -1,20 +1,10 @@
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=pwr10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN: -mcpu=power10 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN: -mcpu=pwr9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN: -mcpu=power9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN: -mcpu=pwr8 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=power8 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
// RUN: -mcpu=pwr7 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NOROP
-// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \
-// RUN: -mcpu=power7 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NOROP
#ifdef __ROP_PROTECT__
static_assert(false, "ROP Protect enabled");
|
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \ | ||
// RUN: -mcpu=pwr9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP | ||
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \ | ||
// RUN: -mcpu=power9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are we removing P9 as it should be covered by both P8/P10? Or did we also mean to keep a P9 line?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah. We have one test for P8 which is the first CPU version supported, and one test for P10 which is a later CPU that also supports it. Adding a P9 doesn't really add any coverage IMO.
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \ | ||
// RUN: -mcpu=power9 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP | ||
// RUN: not %clang -target powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu -fsyntax-only \ | ||
// RUN: -mcpu=pwr8 -mrop-protect %s 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=HASROP |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't feel super strongly either way, but should we keep the pwr
version for consistency?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The P10 run step uses the pwr
format. I think one run step for each mcpu format is adequate. Realistically we should have other coverage that ensures that the 2 formats sets up the same environment and this test could use just one format either way, but since we have a run step for a target greater then 8 anyway I thought to test one of each.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Test was running both -mcpu=pwrN and -mcpu=powerN compile steps for power N = 8, 9 and 10. Reduce to one run step for each form using power8 for one instance and power 10 for the other.