>>! In D4759#6, @EricWF wrote: > As much as I would like to take testit out back and shoot it, previous > conversations with @mclow.lists leads me to believe its still widely used. > Since lit usually isn't available outside of the LLVM repo I'm not sure that > removing testit is viable at this point. > > I would like to see LIT become a standalone "first-class" binary so it could > be easier to use outside of makefile rules. Daniel Dunbar expressed some > thoughts to this end a while ago. I will follow those up with him. > > My current workflow is something like: > ``` > alias lit="python /path/to/llvm/utils/lit/lit.py" > cp libcxx-build/lit.site.cfg libcxx/test/lit.site.cfg > ``` > > Until its as easy to use LIT in the source tree as it is the testit script I > don't think we can even consider removing it. >
I wonder how much of the reason that testit is more widely used is because it's the most obvious path to running the tests. I know when I first started working with the project I had no idea that LIT was even there (or what it was, for that matter). The libc++ docs make no mention of how to use LIT for the tests (by contrast, it's now the only thing mentioned for libc++abi, albeit indirectly though the cmake target). Still, I'll concede that removing testit isn't something we can do just yet. http://reviews.llvm.org/D4759 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
