9867234c38
rather use builder in two ways, than sometimes compiler and sometimes builder Also makes it possible to reuse builtin code in mom’s to_risc, as both use builder. The builtin code by directly adding to compiler, the mom code not. |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| arm | ||
| bench | ||
| elf | ||
| fragments | ||
| lib | ||
| mom | ||
| parfait | ||
| risc | ||
| support | ||
| vool | ||
| helper.rb | ||
| README.md | ||
| test_all.rb | ||
Testing
Testing is off course great, and well practised in the ruby community. Good tests exists in the parts where functionality is clear: Parsing and binary generation.
But it is difficult to write tests when you don't know what the functionality is. Also TDD does not really help as it assumes you know what you're doing.
I used minitest as the framework, just because it is lighter and thus when the time comes to move to rubyx, less work.
All
'''' ruby test/test_all.rb ''''
Parfait
Well, test Parfait. Not perfect, but growing as bugs appear. Basics are ok though.
Compiler
Different kinds of quite minimal tests that ensure we can go from parsed to code.
Fragments
Much more elaborate tests of the compling functionality. All code constructs and their output in terms of instructions are tested.
vm
Mostly tests about the Parfait compatibility layer and padding (for assmenbly). Slightly bad name ... wip