labath added a comment.

In, @JDevlieghere wrote:

> In, @zturner wrote:
> > I don't think `sys.path` is set up correctly to be able to find the 
> > lldbtest package from the `lldb/lit` folder.
> >
> > These things kind of evolved separately, and the `lldb/lit` folder was 
> > created as a place to start iterating on LLVM-style lit / FileCheck tests.  
> > These kind of tests -- by definition -- don't really use the SB API, so no 
> > work was ever done to set up paths correctly so that it could write `import 
> > lldb` or to re-use any of the other stuff from `packages/Python`.
> >
> > I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, but usually the canonical 
> > structuring is to have the test files in the same tree as the lit 
> > configuration.  So perhaps you could put a lit configuration file in 
> > `lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite` and have that be separate from `lldb/lit`, 
> > with the goal of eventually (possibly) merging them.  Then have a separate 
> > CMake target so you'd still have `check-lldb-lit` which goes into the 
> > `lldb/lit` directory, and another one like `check-lldb-lit-dotest` which 
> > starts from the `lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite` directory.
> >
> > On the other hand, if you want to see how `` sets up its 
> > `sys.path`, have a look at `lldb/test/`  The magic is in this 
> > `use_lldb_suite` function, which walks backwards through the tree until it 
> > finds the root, then dives into the `lldbsuite` folder to manually add it 
> > to `sys.path`.
> Do you feel all that outweighs the alternative of just having the format in 
> `llvm/Utils` as is the case in this diff? We already have some LLDB specific 
> stuff there and I would argue that conceptually it makes (at least a little) 
> sense to have all the format living together.

I don't think it needs to be that complex.

You already have LLDB_SOURCE_DIR from ``, so it should only be a 
matter of doing something like this in `lit.cfg`:

  from something import LLDBTest
  config.test_format = LLDBTest(...)

If we can make things as simple as this, then I think we should move this to 
the lldb repo.

Comment at: utils/lit/lit/formats/
+                base, ext = os.path.splitext(filename)
+                if ext in localConfig.suffixes:
+                    yield lit.Test.Test(testSuite, path_in_suite +
Do we need the suffixes to be configurable? The whole testsuite is very 
specific to python and I don't see us running non-python files through this 
method any time soon.

Comment at: utils/lit/lit/formats/
+        passing_test_line = 'RESULT: PASSED'
+        if passing_test_line not in out:
This line only appears if you run dotest in `--no-multiprocess` mode, but I 
don't see where you are adding that. Am I missing something?


lldb-commits mailing list

Reply via email to