That's interesting! So essentially we could use all of LLDB's existing test infra *except* the part that builds the executables. That would at least get rid of the need to write Makefiles.
I know we have some logic to compile the same executables multiple times with different target architectures and even different compilers, but i think lit supports this too because ASAN does something similar. On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:05 PM Jonathan Roelofs <jonat...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > On 3/12/15 6:06 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > Wasn't really trying to get into an extended discussion about this, but > > FWIW I definitely realize that lldb's tests are more complicated than > > what lit currently supports. But that's why I said "even if it meant > > extending lit". It was mostly just a general comment about how it's > > nice if everyone is focused on making one thing better instead of > > everyone having different things. > > > > As for specifics, my understanding is that lit parallelizes better (so > > running tests is faster), understands how to build programs (so doesn't > > require makefiles), and has a richer language for specifying how and > > under what circumstances different tests should be run. It's also > > familiar to other LLVM developers (so encourages cross-collaboration), > > and allows one to write self-contained tests with the program to test > > and the check in a single file (less maintenance). > > I don't know much about lldb's testing needs, but I thought I'd chime in > and mention that there's a lot of magic in the lit TestFormat (which > testsuites can define themselves), and that it's waaaaay more flexible > than it looks. > > LLVM uses the ShTest test format a lot, and that one is well-suited for > the process Jim describes: building shell script pipelines with checkers > at the end, where the test file itself serves as both the input to the > beginning of the pipeline, and the input to the checker at the end. > > Libcxx and Libcxxabi have their own LibcxxTestFormat that behaves a > little differently: they make the assumption that every test is a c/c++ > file which needs to be compiled, executed, and that an exit status of 0 > is a pass. > > From a quick look at the lldb testsuite, I imagine if you wanted to > LIT-ify it, it would make sense to have yet another TestFormat. This > test format would know that it needs to look for *.py files, invoke the > Makefile next to them (or put metadata in comments at the top of the > *.py that says how to build it), then run the *.py file. I think the > changes to the tests themselves would be minimal, as would writing the > lit.cfg to glue it all together. > > > Cheers, > > Jon > > > > In any case, I'm really not an expert on lit, so +bogner and +chandlerc > > in case they want to chime in. I do think it's at least worth thinking > > about whether lit *could* be extended to meet LLDB's needs -- if nothing > > else as a thought exercise, and maybe learning more about how it works > > would give us some ideas to make our own test suite better. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:39 PM <jing...@apple.com > > <mailto:jing...@apple.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2015, at 4:08 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com > > <mailto:ztur...@google.com>> wrote: > > > > > > Oh I'm all for reusing as much of the existing mechanism as > > possible. Was just stating how the CMake worked as a discussion > > point. Another possibility would be to just have the Xcode project > > build one executable that pulls in sources recursively from the > > entire subtree. Is this as easy in Xcode as just adding all sources > > from a subfolder to a single target? > > > > > > > > One day far off in the future it would be nice if all of LLDB's > > tests were ported to lit (even if that meant extending lit to make > > it do what we needed it to do), > > > > Why would this be nice? It looks like lit is a good test runner for > > tests that have some input, do something with the input, produce an > > output and check that output is matches some pattern. That is not > > at all what the lldb tests look like. They often have to do complex > > dances - for instance depending on how the line tables come out > > there are many "correct" ways to step through code. If you are > > going to test this you've got to do "step, if I got to a close > > bracket, step again, if I got past it don't. Etc... > > > > I see no benefit in extending a simple runner like lit to do the > > complex dances the lldb testsuite sometimes has to do. I'm all for > > sharing, but it is also okay to have two implementations of some > > functionality if the two uses are sufficiently different, and this > > certainly seems like one of those cases. > > > > > so I can definitely see some value in hooking lit up to the Xcode > > build so it does everything the CMake build does. I'll have to look > > into exactly what steps the CMake and/or autoconf build are taking, > > but I suspect it's going to involve running CMake from a script, so > > not very desirable. I'm still learning a lot of this stuff though, > > so there may be a better way. Either way, I'll have to look into it > > a little bit. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > In the meantime, if running unit tests from Xcode is not part of > > anyone's usual workflow, can I remove it for now? > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:01 PM <jing...@apple.com > > <mailto:jing...@apple.com>> wrote: > > > I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but I don't see a lot of > > value in making an Xcode project that has targets for each of the > > gtest binaries, and then tries to run the tests. Seems to me it > > would be better if the gtest project just invokes whatever mechanism > > the cmake build would do to run the tests. That's just another set > > of things to keep in sync. > > > > > > It is sufficient to have a target that just does whatever steps > > cmake/lit do to build the gtests & run them, if that is possible. I > > guess if you can't do this without running cmake in the lldb > > top-level directory that would be a problem. But it still seems > > better to me to wire that up, than to have to add tests to both > > Xcode & cmake. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2015, at 3:46 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com > > <mailto:ztur...@google.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > So I'm guessing the scheme runs do-gtest.py. I'd like to > > delete that file as well as all the Makefiles in the directory if > > possible. It seems like these files should be built using the > > normal Xcode build system the same way the rest of LLDB is built. > > > > > > > > The way the CMake does it is that each test folder generates a > > new executable. So right now it will build HostTests.exe, > > ProcessLinuxTests.exe, and UtilityTests.exe. And then CMake will > > invoke lit (the LLVM test runner) to run each of the executables one > > by one and print the output. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if that's easy or feasible to do in the Xcode > > build. I kind of don't want to leave this do-gtest.py and Makefiles > > in the build though, because the more of this stuff we have the more > > maintenance it is, and things tend to rot. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:23 PM <jing...@apple.com > > <mailto:jing...@apple.com>> wrote: > > > > Xcode has "projects" and then "workspaces" and "schemes". > > Workspaces aggregate projects. Schemes exist in both workspaces and > > projects and are the way to say "do something with some of the stuff > > referred to by this project/workspace." So the way to do this > > formally is to have the gtest scheme build & run the tests from the > > gtest project. > > > > > > > > The lldb.xcworkspace file does reference the gtest xcode > > project, and it has a scheme for the gtest. > > > > > > > > Not sure what the scheme does yet, I'll look in a few minutes > > if nobody beats me to it, I'm in the middle of things right now. > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Zachary Turner > > <ztur...@google.com <mailto:ztur...@google.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In lldb/gtest there is a gtest.xcodeproj folder with what I > > guess is an Xcode project. If I understand the way Xcode works, the > > way to use this is by opening this in another instance of Xcode > > separate from your normal LLDB project, and then building it. Is > > this right? > > > > > > > > > > I have a patch that moves some files around, and if nobody is > > using this Xcode project, I would like to delete it. Then, after I > > get the tests up and running in the CMake build, we can add it to > > the "real" Xcode project as a separate target similar to how you > > currently run the LLDB Test suite. > > > > > > > > > > Any objections to deleting the Xcode project? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lldb-dev mailing list > > lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > > > -- > Jon Roelofs > jonat...@codesourcery.com > CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
