[libc++] Fix name of is_always_lock_free test which was never being run #106077
Conversation
llvmbot
added
the
libc++
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-libcxx Author: Louis Dionne (ldionne) ChangesFull diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106077.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/libcxx/test/std/atomics/atomics.lockfree/is_always_lock_free.cpp b/libcxx/test/std/atomics/atomics.lockfree/is_always_lock_free.pass.cpp
similarity index 100%
rename from libcxx/test/std/atomics/atomics.lockfree/is_always_lock_free.cpp
rename to libcxx/test/std/atomics/atomics.lockfree/is_always_lock_free.pass.cpp
|
ldionne
force-pushed
the
review/is-always-lock-free-test-name
branch
from
03a3f8e to
6ff7ed8
Compare
|
Seems like this PR caused tests to fail. Can you have a look @ldionne |
|
ping |
|
@philnik777 you approved it - but the tests are failing - I did re-run them and it still failed. Would it still be safe to merge this? |
Not as-is. We need to suppress the diagnostic that causes the test to fail, but that's a minor change. |
|
Sorry, I dropped the ball on this cause I was absorbed by the modules work. Looking now. |
ldionne
force-pushed
the
review/is-always-lock-free-test-name
branch
from
6ff7ed8 to
eddceb7
Compare
|
Seems like there are still a lot of CI problems here? |
ldionne
force-pushed
the
review/is-always-lock-free-test-name
branch
3 times, most recently
from
17e0d67 to
8225a05
Compare
tru
force-pushed
the
review/is-always-lock-free-test-name
branch
from
8225a05 to
037efef
Compare
ldionne
force-pushed
the
review/is-always-lock-free-test-name
branch
from
037efef to
74dd036
Compare
| // UNSUPPORTED: c++03, c++11, c++14 | ||
| // XFAIL: LIBCXX-PICOLIBC-FIXME |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@domin144 @mplatings I don't quite understand why this fails. There seems to be missing the __atomic_is_lock_free intrinsic on the Picolibc setup, but the other atomic tests are working. Could you take a look?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I will merge this because we want to cherry-pick onto LLVM 19 and it's better to have this test for most platforms than for none of them, but I would really appreciate if we could address this in a follow-up.
|
/cherry-pick b456619 |
…un (llvm#106077) (cherry picked from commit b456619)
|
/pull-request #110838 |
Currently this test is completely xfailed as part of the patch #106077. But this test works on A and R profile, not in v7M profile. Because the test contain cases in which m-profile will fail for atomic types greater than 4 bytes in size.
…un (llvm#106077) (cherry picked from commit b456619)
| @@ -45,7 +51,8 @@ void check_always_lock_free(std::atomic<T> const& a) { | |||
|
|
|||
| // In all cases, also sanity-check it based on the implication always-lock-free => lock-free. | |||
| if (is_always_lock_free) { | |||
| std::same_as<bool> decltype(auto) is_lock_free = a.is_lock_free(); | |||
| auto is_lock_free = a.is_lock_free(); | |||
| ASSERT_SAME_TYPE(decltype(is_always_lock_free), bool const); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ASSERT_SAME_TYPE(decltype(is_always_lock_free), bool const); | |
| ASSERT_SAME_TYPE(decltype(is_lock_free), bool); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would you open a PR to fix this?
… `-Wno-psabi` (llvm#113608) MSVC doesn't understand `-Wno-psabi`, which was introduced here by @ldionne in llvm#106077. Using `ADDITIONAL_COMPILE_FLAGS(gcc-style-warnings)` (implemented by llvm#75317) avoids passing this to MSVC.
No description provided.