> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:31 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: >> >> I don't think new test authors really need to add CMake any more so than >> they currently need to understand Make. Which is to say, not very much. >> Most Makefiles are currently 1-2 lines of code that simply does nothing >> other than include the common Makefile. >> >> On the other hand, CMake defines a lot of constructs designed to support >> portable builds, so actually writing and maintaining that common CMake build >> file would be much easier. The existing Makefile-based system already >> doesn't require you to understand the specific compiler invocations you >> want. Here's 3 random Makefiles, which is hopefully representative given >> that I pulled them completely at random. >> >> breakpoint-commands/Makefile: >> LEVEL = ../../../make >> CXX_SOURCES := nested.cpp >> include $(LEVEL)/Makefile.rules >> >> functionalities/inferior-assert: >> LEVEL = ../../make >> C_SOURCES := main.c >> include $(LEVEL)/Makefile.rules >> >> >> types: >> LEVEL = ../make >> # Example: >> # >> # CXX_SOURCES := int.cpp >> include $(LEVEL)/Makefile.rules >> >> None of this is particularly interesting. There are a very few tests that >> need to do something weird. I opened 10 other random Makefiles and still >> didn't find any. I don't believe it would be hard to support those cases. >> >> So now instead of "understand Make" it becomes "understand CMake". Whic is >> already a requirement of building LLVM. > > Fair point. I would suggest that I'll try to make LLDB's testsuite build > out-of-tree using the existing Makefile system. That should be a generally > useful first step. After doing this I will hopefully have a much better > understanding of the requirements of the Makefiles and then we can revisit > this idea with me actually knowing what I'm talking about :-) > >> If our test suite was lit-based where you actually had to write compiler >> invocations into the test files, I would feel differently, but that isn't >> what we have today. We have something that is almost a direct mapping to >> using CMake. > > Question: how would you feel about converting the Makefiles to LIT-style > .test files with very explicit RUN-lines?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Jim > > -- adrian _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
