beanz added a comment. @zturner, on many of your comments I need to do some research and get back to you. Particularly I need to understand how lit works on Windows better. I do have one inline response.
@granata.enrico, we could migrate the existing tests into being executed by lit even if they aren't using lit's features, so if that direction is desired we could get everything in lit. That said, you shouldn't ever really have multiple incantations. Once we have reliable lit testing that is useful it should be connected to the "check-lldb" and "check-all" targets appropriately. Just because it runs more than one type of test doesn't mean you need multiple incantations, and more and varied testing is generally better for the quality of the product. @jingham and @zturner, we can also take advantage of FileCheck's use of regular expressions to write robust matchers. In general LLVM has managed to change text output formats many times in radical ways, and LIT's testing has still suited the project well. And to echo @zturner's last comment, one huge benefit to LIT is that reproducing failures is very simple. LIT failures log simple shell commands that can be executed to reproduce. ================ Comment at: lit/CMakeLists.txt:14 @@ -13,1 +13,3 @@ +option(LLDB_TEST_CLANG "Use in-tree clang when testing lldb" Off) + ---------------- The `LLDB_TEST_COMPILER` option doesn't signify that it is using an in-tree or out-of-tree compiler which is significant if we're going to tie the test target to depending on the clang target. We could support that option in addition to this one, but I see them as distinctly different. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24591 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
