Skip to content

fix: skip fence.tso on llvm-test #687

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
dhower-qc merged 1 commit into from
Apr 29, 2025
Merged

fix: skip fence.tso on llvm-test #687

dhower-qc merged 1 commit into from
Apr 29, 2025

Conversation

@AFOliveira
Copy link
Collaborator

@AFOliveira AFOliveira commented Apr 29, 2025 •
edited by dhower-qc
Loading

since compiler and ISA view of the instruction differ

Fixes #460

@AFOliveira AFOliveira mentioned this pull request Apr 29, 2025
Merged
@dhower-qc dhower-qc enabled auto-merge April 29, 2025 13:04
@ThinkOpenly
Copy link
Collaborator

ThinkOpenly commented Apr 29, 2025

My preference would be to add just a bit more information in the commit message regarding what "differ" means.

@AFOliveira AFOliveira disabled auto-merge April 29, 2025 14:30
@AFOliveira
Copy link
Collaborator Author

AFOliveira commented Apr 29, 2025

@ThinkOpenly ok, I'll add it

@AFOliveira
fix: skip fence.tso on llvm-test since compiler and ISA view of instr…
0396da3 
…uction differ

fence.tso is a fence instruction and the ISA states it shall be all zeros. Compilers like LLVM take this literally and only implement it all constant, while the ISA leaves some fields open to newer implementation approaches. When we check UDB version that refers to the ISA vs LLVM, the test fails because of the different view on the subject.
Ad-hoc skip the LLVM test for fence.tso.

Signed-off-by: Afonso Oliveira <[email protected]>
@AFOliveira AFOliveira changed the title fix: skip fence.tso on llvm-test since compiler and ISA view of instruction differ. fix: skip fence.tso on llvm-test since compiler and ISA view of instruction differ Apr 29, 2025
@AFOliveira AFOliveira force-pushed the AFOliveira/fixFenceTso branch from fba4c1f to 0396da3 Compare April 29, 2025 18:01
@AFOliveira AFOliveira enabled auto-merge April 29, 2025 18:01
@AFOliveira AFOliveira disabled auto-merge April 29, 2025 18:02
@AFOliveira
Copy link
Collaborator Author

AFOliveira commented Apr 29, 2025

@ThinkOpenly done - hopefully :)

@ThinkOpenly
Copy link
Collaborator

ThinkOpenly commented Apr 29, 2025

You're gonna love me...

None of this is in the contributing guidelines, but I wonder if it should be added:

  • The commit subject line is so long, it wraps:
    image
    I suggest a message stating only the WHAT 😉:

    fix: skip fence.tso on llvm-test

    The WHY is in the commit message body.

  • The line length in the commit body is 344 characters (!). I suggest wrapping like code at something like 80.

If I'm crazy and the world has moved on from caring about the width of text lines, let me know.

@dhower-qc
Copy link
Collaborator

dhower-qc commented Apr 29, 2025

You're gonna love me...

None of this is in the contributing guidelines, but I wonder if it should be added:

  • The commit subject line is so long, it wraps:
    image
    I suggest a message stating only the WHAT 😉:

    fix: skip fence.tso on llvm-test

    The WHY is in the commit message body.

  • The line length in the commit body is 344 characters (!). I suggest wrapping like code at something like 80.

If I'm crazy and the world has moved on from caring about the width of text lines, let me know.

You're right, it should be added. The commit template mentions 80 lines, but not the contributing guide.

@dhower-qc dhower-qc changed the title fix: skip fence.tso on llvm-test since compiler and ISA view of instruction differ fix: skip fence.tso on llvm-test Apr 29, 2025
@dhower-qc dhower-qc added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 29, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 70d5a7d Apr 29, 2025
17 checks passed
@dhower-qc dhower-qc deleted the AFOliveira/fixFenceTso branch April 29, 2025 22:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@dhower-qc dhower-qc dhower-qc approved these changes

@ThinkOpenly ThinkOpenly Awaiting requested review from ThinkOpenly ThinkOpenly is a code owner

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@AFOliveira @ThinkOpenly @dhower-qc