This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Understand GCC test process
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Sabrina Souto <sabrinadfs at gmail dot com>,Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 18:11:10 +0200
- Subject: Re: Understand GCC test process
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAA1wpi1MCPPBqmr2iCKmpdiG5gu5zL=MOAx+y1cEtfzxkMajLg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdSaqsn8xDSG46GwMvgVjGOoRoPtkXC5t+AbAvg=_jkkkA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAA1wpi3y_SO8s_pjaZS-fC6GgfkuDCOnnaQNurDJkZi1kqJY7w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdTwhgLHWQhsdrB9ZUX3=LD3m-m=hBGXswmyT0c2+c5DHQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAA1wpi22TZ=awDNWRBtechjamK+T+Z3LiB7GnsnXO1sdMUxp2w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdQhBsu6BfRFpikXEeBsvN=fV9O16ytp-Vb41ke++Zt_iQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAA1wpi0om0ZoFPopu0j4YmGM_iFNM4H8-2NwKunu2Ta-SEHuRA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On October 7, 2015 5:45:31 PM GMT+02:00, Sabrina Souto <sabrinadfs@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What exactly are you tracing, and how?
>I'm proposing an approach for testing configurable system in my
>research, and I'm trying to apply it to GCC. So, I instrumented the
>GCC function calls (in the first level of ..gcc-version-x.x/gcc/ and
>the dirs related to C/C++) and some options, in a semi-automatic way
>(I tried to use PIN, but it was very slow...).
>
>> Are you only tracing the 'gcc' driver? Or every process and child
>> process that gets spawned by 'make'?
>I'm tracing the 'gcc' driver.
>
>>
>> Typically to run the testsuite you run 'make', which runs DejaGnu's
>> 'runtest' shell script, which runs the 'expect' program (written in
>> Tcl), which invokes the 'gcc' driver, which invokes the actual
>> compiler, 'cc1', to compile a testcase. So a lot of that is common to
>> every testcase.
>Do you mean, for example, that the compiler will always build the AST,
>translate to intermediary code representations, etc., regardless of
>the compilation option... and it corresponds to a lot of common code
>across all tests?
If you are basically computing coverage of gcc/ then yes, a lot of commonality between test cases is expected.
Richard.
>Thanks,
>Sabrina Souto