-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 117
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
[cts] Generate conformance tests for adapters #799
Conversation
test/conformance/CMakeLists.txt
Outdated
WORKING_DIRECTORY ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}) | ||
else() | ||
if(UR_BUILD_ADAPTER_CUDA) | ||
add_test_force_adapters(${name} adapter_cuda) |
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.
I'd just pass "cuda" and "hip" and "level_zero" as a second param.
The word "adapter_" seems redundant... unless you made it on purpose (e.g. to filter out adapters' related tests), then you can move this "adapter_" word into the function 😉
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.
This prefix is used intentionally, in order to have the correct name for linking adapters and the correct label. In the function we have several uses for this variable, so let me leave it as it is for now. Perhaps in the future, I will change this part of the code.
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.
Heh, ok, it's not that big of a deal.
But on the other hand, it's just a matter of prepending adapter
variable with "adapter_" within the function.
6f3d383
to
22b92af
Compare
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.
👍
I'm not sure I fully understand what you're trying to do here? Is this so that the conformance tests will be run with |
That's right. We needed the ability to select which adapter is being tested at runtime (not configure-time or build-time). And, maybe more importantly, filter out the failing tests. This approach will allow us to easily run cts for each adapter. It also prepares ctests for upcoming changes where we filter out gtest output to allow known-failing tests that are specific for each adapter. Something like: Ideally I'd have preferred for all adapter-specific code to be self-contained (so that we don't have to remember to add |
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.
Thanks for the clarification @pbalcer.
No description provided.