xref: /aosp_15_r20/art/tools/checker/README (revision 795d594fd825385562da6b089ea9b2033f3abf5a)

Checker is a testing tool which compiles a given test file and compares the
state of the control-flow graph before and after each optimization pass
against a set of statements specified alongside the tests.

Tests are written in Java or Smali, turned into DEX and compiled with the
Optimizing compiler. "Check lines" are statements formatted as comments of the
source file. They begin with prefix "/// CHECK" or "## CHECK", respectively,
followed by a pattern that the engine attempts to match in the compiler output.

Statements are tested in groups which correspond to the individual compiler
passes. Each group of check lines therefore must start with a 'CHECK-START'
header which specifies the output group it should be tested against. The group
name must exactly match one of the groups recognized in the output (they can
be listed with the '--list-passes' command-line flag).

Matching of check lines is carried out in the order of appearance in the
source file. There are five types of check lines. Branching instructions are
also supported and documented later in this file.
 - CHECK:      Must match an output line which appears in the output group
               later than lines matched against any preceding checks. Output
               lines must therefore match the check lines in the same order.
               These are referred to as "in-order" checks in the code.
 - CHECK-DAG:  Must match an output line which appears in the output group
               later than lines matched against any preceding in-order checks.
               In other words, the order of output lines does not matter
               between consecutive DAG checks.
 - CHECK-NOT:  Must not match any output line which appears in the output group
               later than lines matched against any preceding checks and
               earlier than lines matched against any subsequent checks.
               Surrounding non-negative checks (or boundaries of the group)
               therefore create a scope within which the statement is verified.
 - CHECK-NEXT: Must match the output line which comes right after the line which
               matched the previous check. Can only be used after a CHECK or
               another CHECK-NEXT.
 - CHECK-EVAL: Specifies a Python expression which must evaluate to 'True'.

Check-line patterns are treated as plain text rather than regular expressions
but are whitespace agnostic.

Actual regex patterns can be inserted enclosed in '{{' and '}}' brackets. If
curly brackets need to be used inside the body of the regex, they need to be
enclosed in round brackets. For example, the pattern '{{foo{2}}}' will parse
the invalid regex 'foo{2', but '{{(fo{2})}}' will match 'foo'.

Regex patterns can be named and referenced later. A new variable is defined
with '<<name:regex>>' and can be referenced with '<<name>>'. Variables are
only valid within the scope of the defining group. Within a group they cannot
be redefined or used undefined.

Example:
  The following statements can be placed in a Java source file:

  /// CHECK-START: int MyClass.MyMethod() constant_folding (after)
  /// CHECK:         <<ID:i\d+>>  IntConstant {{11|22}}
  /// CHECK:                      Return [<<ID>>]

  The engine will attempt to match the check lines against the output of the
  group named on the first line. Together they verify that the CFG after
  constant folding returns an integer constant with value either 11 or 22.


Of the language constructs above, 'CHECK-EVAL' lines support only referencing of
variables. Any other surrounding text will be passed to Python's `eval` as is.

Example:
  /// CHECK-START: int MyClass.MyMethod() liveness (after)
  /// CHECK:         InstructionA liveness:<<VarA:\d+>>
  /// CHECK:         InstructionB liveness:<<VarB:\d+>>
  /// CHECK-EVAL:    <<VarA>> != <<VarB>>


A group of check lines can be made architecture-specific by inserting '-<arch>'
after the 'CHECK-START' keyword. The previous example can be updated to run for
arm64 only with:

Example:
  /// CHECK-START-ARM64: int MyClass.MyMethod() constant_folding (after)
  /// CHECK:         <<ID:i\d+>>  IntConstant {{11|22}}
  /// CHECK:                      Return [<<ID>>]

For convenience, several architectures can be specified as set after the
'CHECK-START' keyword. Any listed architecture will match in that case,
thereby avoiding to repeat the check lines if some, but not all architectures
match. An example line looks like:

  /// CHECK-START-{X86_64,ARM,ARM64}: int MyClass.MyMethod() constant_folding (after)


Branching is possible thanks to the following statements:
 - CHECK-IF:
 - CHECK-ELIF:
 - CHECK-ELSE:
 - CHECK-FI:

CHECK-IF and CHECK-ELIF take a Python expression as input that will be evaluated by `eval`.

A possible use case of branching is to check whether the generated code exploits the instruction
architecture features enabled at compile time. For that purpose, you can call the custom made
function hasIsaFeature("feature_name").

Example:
  /// CHECK-START-ARM64: int other.TestByte.testDotProdComplex(byte[], byte[]) disassembly (after)
  /// CHECK:        VecDotProd
  /// CHECK-IF:     hasIsaFeature("dotprod")
  ///               CHECK:        sdot
  /// CHECK-ELSE:
  ///               CHECK-NOT:    sdot
  /// CHECK-FI:

Like CHECK-EVAL, CHECK-IF and CHECK-ELIF support only referencing of variables, defining new
variables as part of the statement input is not allowed. Any other surrounding text will be passed
to Python's `eval` as is. CHECK-ELSE and CHECK-FI must not have any input.

Example:
  /// CHECK-START: int MyClass.MyMethod() constant_folding (after)
  /// CHECK:        {{i\d+}} IntConstant <<MyConst:(0|1|2)>>
  /// CHECK-IF:     <<MyConst>> == 0
  ///               CHECK-NEXT:            FooBar01
  /// CHECK-ELIF:   <<MyConst>> == 1
  ///               CHECK-NOT:             FooBar01
  /// CHECK-FI:

Branch blocks can contain any statement, including CHECK-NEXT and CHECK-DAG.
Notice the CHECK-NEXT statement within the IF branch. When a CHECK-NEXT is encountered,
Checker expects that the previously executed statement was either a CHECK or a CHECK-NEXT.
This condition is enforced at runtime, and an error is thrown if it's not respected.

Statements inside branches can define new variables. If a new variable gets defined inside a branch
(of any depth, since nested branching is allowed), that variable will become global within the scope
of the defining group. In other words, it will be valid everywhere after its definition within the
block defined by the CHECK-START statement. The absence of lexical scoping for Checker variables
seems a bit inelegant at first, but is probably more practical.

Example:
  /// CHECK-START: void MyClass.FooBar() liveness (after)
  /// CHECK-IF:     os.environ.get('ART_READ_BARRIER_TYPE') != 'TABLELOOKUP'
  ///               CHECK:                 <<MyID:i\d+>> IntConstant 3
  /// CHECK-ELSE:
  ///               CHECK:                 <<MyID:i\d+>> IntConstant 5
  /// CHECK-FI:
  /// CHECK-NEXT:   Return [<<MyID>>]

Notice that the variable MyID remained valid outside the branch where it was defined.
Furthermore, in this example, the definition of MyID depends on which branch gets selected at
runtime. Attempting to re-define a variable or referencing an undefined variable is not allowed,
Checker will throw a runtime error.
The example above also shows how we can use environment variables to perform custom checks.

It is possible to combine IF, (multiple) ELIF and ELSE statements together. Nested branching is
also supported.