granata.enrico added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24591#543277, @beanz wrote:
> @granata.enrico, we could migrate the existing tests into being executed by > lit even if they aren't using lit's features, so if that direction is desired > we could get everything in lit. That said, you shouldn't ever really have > multiple incantations. Once we have reliable lit testing that is useful it > should be connected to the "check-lldb" and "check-all" targets > appropriately. Just because it runs more than one type of test doesn't mean > you need multiple incantations, and more and varied testing is generally > better for the quality of the product. The problem is that some of us at Apple build LLDB in Xcode, and then test by saying $ ./dotest.py which means no amount of CMake magic will do anything for us. If Xcode builds are supposed to be deprecated and not-to-be-used, that's a possible path forward (but one I am hearing about for the first time...) Mind you, I would not be opposed to having dotest.py also run lit tests and unit tests - or lit run Python and unit tests as well if that's the preferred direction I am just worried about the multiplication of solutions we see in LLDB (Xcode build vs. Cmake build, unit tests, vs lit tests vs Python tests, ...) - it would be nice to streamline those at some point. Your patch is just getting friendly fire because it adds one more axis to this space is all :) https://reviews.llvm.org/D24591 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
