-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 199
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.
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
Added negative tests for function CreateCommandBufferKHR from cl_khr_command_buffer #1915
Added negative tests for function CreateCommandBufferKHR from cl_khr_command_buffer #1915
Conversation
test_conformance/extensions/cl_khr_command_buffer/negative_tests/CMakeLists.txt
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
test_conformance/extensions/cl_khr_command_buffer/negative_tests/command_buffer_create.cpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
test_conformance/extensions/cl_khr_command_buffer/negative_tests/command_buffer_create.cpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These tests generally look good and they found an issue in the command buffer emulation layer (already fixed), so that's pretty cool.
Did we discuss whether to implement these tests in a separate executable or as a part of the existing command buffer executable? All else being equal I'd prefer to minimize the number of test executables, and I don't think we've had separate executables for negative tests previously.
I don't think we have discussed it. I would probably also err on the side of less test executables as I feel like new ones could get missed when people are maintain scripts/csvs for testing, but that's a slight preference rather than a strong one. Prefixing the new tests with |
ec4a5e7
to
73b5b25
Compare
73b5b25
to
8772c7a
Compare
Merging as discussed in the April 16th teleconference. |
According to description #1668