labath added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12416#235166, @tfiala wrote:
> > instead of making another layer on top of that (it's bad enough we have > > dosep and dotest already). > > > The existence of those two is at least partly due to the organic nature in > which they developed. I understand that. I tried to merge them when I initially started on the project, but failed miserably. One day we should still go ahead and do that, but there are more pressing issues now. I am just trying to make sure we don't end up with three things to merge :). > All that aside, if we did want to move this more firmly into dotest/dosep, it > currently requires the data to be generated from dotest and collated in > dosep. So it could change like so: > > 1. Dosep.py could be modified to collect the skip reason data if it detects > its presence, and can collate and display if the skip reason info is there. > 2. If the data isn't present, dosep.py can just skip presenting the skip > reason report piece. > 3. We can add a skip reason report suppression flag that skips printing out > the skip reason in dosep.py if for some reason somebody doesn't want to see > it. By default it would print skip reason tabulations when available unless > this flag was specified. I see that as an optional task pending anybody > really wanting/needing it. > > Then the user requirement becomes "add so and such an option to your > dotest.py invocation options and you'll get skip counts in your dosep.py > output." > > Seem reasonable? Sounds great to me. :) http://reviews.llvm.org/D12416 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
