That won't work on the Mac for Xcode builds, which is what pretty much all of us here use to build lldb.
Jim > On Jul 18, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Zachary Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think it's that simple, because some of the test have to exercise > features of the debugger that deal with how your program was built. Was it > built with symbols, without symbols, with FPO, are the symbols in a different > folder than the exe (e.g. testing the symbol search path), etc. > > I thought about it a little, because I agree with you that it's annoying to > have the test run CMake and then depend on some external build tool, but I > think an elegant way to make this work is to just have all of the test > executables and libraries built at the same time you build LLDB. The nice > thing about this is that the tests end up running significantly faster, > because simply running the test suite will never end up building anything, it > will just load executables that have already been built. It also avoids the > additional dependency problem, because you're already building LLDB with > CMake to begin with. > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Reid Kleckner <[email protected]> wrote: > I haven't stared deeply at LLDB's usage of make, but I think adding CMake to > the mix is a step in the wrong direction. CMake isn't a make replacement, > it's a meta-build system and autoconf replacement. Once you generate build > files, you'll still have an external dependency on some other build system > (ninja or msbuild). > > Aren't most LLDB test programs simple enough to be linked with something like > the lit shell interpreter? > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > This is mostly historical. So long as I don't have to do it, I don't really > mind one way or the other. OTOH, beware, this sort of thing is sticky... > > Jim > > > > On Jul 18, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Zachary Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm not very well versed in MAKE, but an issue I'm encountering currently > > is the use of MAKE in compiling the test files. Is there any reason CMake > > can't be used here? There's a lot of shell-specific logic in the Makefile > > currently that is hard to reproduce on Windows, so if we can port > > everything to CMake it might be helpful. > > > > Thoughts? > > _______________________________________________ > > lldb-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
