Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
  1. Jan 18, 2011
    • Iustin Pop's avatar
      Check consistency of the class names and OP_ID · ff0d18e6
      Iustin Pop authored
      
      As the class names should be now consistent with the OP_IDs, we add a
      check for wrongly-defined OP_IDs.
      
      However, the future removal of the hand-coded OP_IDs will render this
      obsolete, so this check is introduced just to make sure that the
      previous renaming patches did the right job, and it will then be
      removed.
      
      The consistency checks require renaming the test opcodes, which were
      using arbitrary names, depending on test author. They are now all
      standardized on OpTest (local scope).
      
      Signed-off-by: default avatarIustin Pop <iustin@google.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarRené Nussbaumer <rn@google.com>
      ff0d18e6
  2. Jan 10, 2011
    • Iustin Pop's avatar
      Generalize the OpCode-should-be-in-mcpu test · 687c10d9
      Iustin Pop authored
      
      Currently, the unittest TestDispatchTable in mcpu unittest does a
      hard-coded approach to test whether an opcode should be included or
      not in the mcpu.Processor dispatch table. This is not flexible, so we
      replace it with two changes:
      
      - first, we do not return the base OpCode in opcodes.OP_MAPPING;
        rationale being that we shouldn't need to serialise or deserialise
        this opcode during normal operation
      - second, we add a new attribute WITH_LU (other name suggestions
        welcome) to the base opcode set to True, and we explicitly set it to
        False in OpTestDummy, thus automatic skipping of such LUs in the
        unittest (and in other places)
      
      To correct for the new behaviour, the tests in the opcode unittests
      are updated to include OpCode explicitly.
      
      Note: we also replace assert_ with assertTrue in the affected unittest
      (as assert_ is deprecated in 2.7).
      
      Signed-off-by: default avatarIustin Pop <iustin@google.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarMichael Hanselmann <hansmi@google.com>
      687c10d9
  3. Jan 05, 2011
  4. Feb 23, 2010
Loading