- Background here is that that these sets of tests are "invalid" to be run on z/OS
- The reason is because these test constructs that HLASM never supports (HLASM doesn't support GNU style directives)
- Usually tests are geared towards a particular target via the use of a triple that targets just that platform, but these tests require the use of a "default triple"
- Thus, we mark these tests as "UNSUPPORTED" for z/OS since we don't want to run these for z/OS
Reviewed By: yusra.syeda, abhina.sreeskantharajan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105204
In objdump, many targets support `-M no-aliases`. Instead of having a
`-*-no-aliases` for each target when LLVM adds the support, it makes more sense
to introduce objdump style `-M`.
-riscv-arch-reg-names is removed. -riscv-no-aliases has too many uses and thus is retained for now.
Reviewed By: luismarques
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103004
On z/OS, the following error message is not matched correctly in lit tests.
```
EDC5129I No such file or directory.
```
This patch uses a lit config substitution to check for platform specific error messages.
Reviewed By: muiez, jhenderson
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95246
On z/OS, the following error message is not matched correctly in lit tests. This patch updates the CHECK expression to match successfully.
```
EDC5129I No such file or directory.
```
Reviewed By: muiez
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94239
When building LLVM as a (potentially dynamic) library that can be linked against
by multiple compilers, the default triple is not really meaningful.
We allow to explicitely set it to an empty string when configuring LLVM.
In this case, said "target independent" tests in the test suite that are using
the default triple are disabled by matching the newly available feature
"default_triple".
Reviewers: probinson, echristo
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12660
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 247775
This is a follow up to r247518.
As a general note, I think we could do a much better job testing for
error conditions in tools. I already anticipated in a previous mail,
but while implementing this I noticed that the code coverage we have
for error checking is pretty low. I can arbitrarily remove checks from
several tools and the suite still passes.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12846
llvm-svn: 247582
Timm Bäder