jdenny added a comment. In D154130#4502036 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D154130#4502036>, @MrTrillian wrote:
> In D154130#4487292 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D154130#4487292>, @jdenny wrote: > >> 3. Extend lit's own test suite to cover it. > > I submitted an update with your suggestions #1 and #2 but this #3 is much > more difficult because of the nature of `%{t:real}`. Thanks for doing that. I'll try to review more carefully soon, hopefully early next week. > I'm not sure I can have a source/target path that includes symlinks in a way > that allows me to test this, and even more so with substitute drives since we > can't know which drive letters are unallocated. Not being a windows person, it's hard for me to answer about substitute drives, but I understand your concern. One possible approach is to verify the relationships among the various flavors of a substitution (e.g., `%t`, `%{t:real}`, etc.), and hope (or ensure) that some CI configs that run check-lit will use substitute drives for the source and/or build directory. The tests should pass regardless. A less desirable approach is just to do minimal sanity checks, such as checking that the base file name is the same across all flavors of a substitution. Of course, the least desirable approach is to depend on other subprojects' test suites to catch lit bugs. It's easier for lit developers to identify lit bugs when check-lit itself shows them, preferably locally but possibly in CI. Thanks for taking a look at this. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D154130/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D154130 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
