On 10/27/2015 01:49 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* unittests/test-cfg.c: New file.
---
gcc/testsuite/unittests/test-cfg.c | 319 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 319 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/unittests/test-cfg.c
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/unittests/test-cfg.c
b/gcc/testsuite/unittests/test-cfg.c
+/* These tests directly create CFGs.
+ Compare with the static fns within tree-cfg.c:
+ - build_gimple_cfg
+ - make_blocks: calls create_basic_block (seq, bb);
+ - make_edges. */
+
+/* Verify a simple cfg of the form:
+ ENTRY -> A -> B -> C -> EXIT. */
+TEST_F (cfg_test, linear_chain)
+{
+ gimple_register_cfg_hooks ();
+
+ tree fndecl = push_fndecl ("cfg_test_linear_chain");
+ function *fun = DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (fndecl);
+ EXPECT_TRUE (fun != NULL);
+
+ EXPECT_EQ (2, n_basic_blocks_for_fn (fun));
+ EXPECT_EQ (0, n_edges_for_fn (fun));
Aren't those 3 redundant with the tests done by push_fndecl?
+
+/* Verify a simple CFG of the form:
+ ENTRY
+ |
+ A
+ / \
+ /t \f
+ B C
+ \ /
+ \ /
+ D
+ |
+ EXIT. */
+TEST_F (cfg_test, diamond)
+{
+ gimple_register_cfg_hooks ();
+
+ tree fndecl = push_fndecl ("cfg_test_diamond");
+ function *fun = DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (fndecl);
+ EXPECT_TRUE (fun != NULL);
+
+ EXPECT_EQ (2, n_basic_blocks_for_fn (fun));
+ EXPECT_EQ (0, n_edges_for_fn (fun));
Similarly here.
+} /* anon namespace. */
+
+/* TODO: test the dominator/postdominator logic with various graphs/nodes:
+ - loop
+ - nested loops
+ - switch statement (a block with many out-edges)
+ - something that jumps to itself
+ - etc */
+
+/* TODO: add tests for loop-detection here? */
I wonder what would happen if you called any of the internal cfg
verification routines?!?
/me ducks.
Unless there's a good reason, drop the presumably redundant tests and
this is OK. Save preapprovald for these changes as the bitmap patch.
jeff
