Skip to content

[SYCL][E2E] Reduce number of FileCheck uses #18848

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: sycl
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

AlexeySachkov
Copy link
Contributor

LIT is perfectly capable of checking the exit code and there is no need to deal with any extra output parsing and I/O.

LIT is perfectly capable of checking the exit code and there is no
need to deal with any extra output parsing and I/O.
@AlexeySachkov AlexeySachkov marked this pull request as ready for review June 11, 2025 14:15
@AlexeySachkov AlexeySachkov requested review from a team as code owners June 11, 2025 14:15
// RUN: env SYCL_PI_LEVEL_ZERO_TRACK_INDIRECT_ACCESS_MEMORY=1 %{run} %t.out 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
//
// CHECK: pass
// RUN: env SYCL_PI_LEVEL_ZERO_TRACK_INDIRECT_ACCESS_MEMORY=1 %{run} %t.out 2>&1
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not sure if this is the right PR to address this, but isn't SYCL_PI deprecated? Shouldn't this be SYCL_UR instead?

@@ -87,12 +87,11 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) {
passed = false;
}
}
std::cout << (passed ? "passed\n" : "FAILED\n");
if (!passed)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the same vein, why do we need to emit "FAILED"? Can we clean this up as well?

Thanks

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants