Take runQ tests from the backend and run them #559
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tomsmeding
force-pushed
the
test-runq
branch
from
6cd29ab to
798a3e8
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Linked to AccelerateHS/accelerate-llvm#112, must be merged at the same time
Description
The
runQfunction in the backends was not tested; this PR allows it to be. The actual tests live in the backends, not here, because of staging issues: the test must userunQat compile time, andrunQis only available when the backend is actually built. Thus we can not do much better than defining the entire test in the backend and then passing the TestTree intoaccelerateto be included in the NoFib test suite.It would be possible to move most of the RunQ test file into
accelerateproper and have just a little delegation module in the backends that does the actualrunQcalls. However, because this test is currently tiny, I didn't think this was worth the effort and additional indirection. What do you think?How has this been tested?
The tests have been tested by running them.