Masashi Yoshimura (Sep 11 2025 at 11:16): Masashi Yoshimura (Sep 11 2025 at 11:16):I was testing cranelift/filetests/filetests/runtests/*.clif with the riscv64 target on x86-64, and I thought the clif-util test (test run) command and the clif-util run command would produce the same result, but I noticed that their behavior is different. For example, when I tested bb-padding.clif, the test command passed, but running run resulted in an error. Could you explain why this happens?
clif-util test:
wasmtime$ qemu-riscv64 -L /usr/riscv64-linux-gnu -E LD\_LIBRARY\_PATH=/usr/riscv64-linux-gnu/lib target/riscv64gc-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/clif-util test -v ./cranelift/filetests/filetests/runtests/bb-padding.clif
0.581 ./cranelift/filetests/filetests/runtests/bb-padding.clif
1 tests
clif-util run:
wasmtime$ qemu-riscv64 -L /usr/riscv64-linux-gnu -E LD\_LIBRARY\_PATH=/usr/riscv64-linux-gnu/lib target/riscv64gc-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/clif-util run -v ./cranelift/filetests/filetests/runtests/bb-padding.clif
./cranelift/filetests/filetests/runtests/bb-padding.clif: Compilation error: Unsupported feature: should be implemented in ISLE: inst = `v0 = vconst.i64x2 const0`, type = `Some(types::I64X2)`
1 file
Error: 1 failure
This topic was moved to #cranelift > Difference between clif-util test run and clif-util run. by Till Schneidereit.
Last updated: Dec 06 2025 at 06:05 UTC