On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 at 16:47, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:11 AM Jonas Devlieghere via Phabricator < > revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > >> JDevlieghere added a comment. >> >> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45215#1056917, @zturner wrote: >> >> > I haven’t had time to look at this in detail yet, but when I originally >> had >> > this idea I thought we would use lit’s discovery mechanism to find all >> .py >> > files, and then invoke them using dotest.py in single process mode >> with a >> > path to a specific file. >> >> >> Assuming we can work around the problem of not every `.py` file being a >> test (by filtering the `Test` prefix), would there be a way to >> differentiate the different test within a single file? >> > Would we need to? dotest will just run all the tests in a single file. > > I can see how it might be desirable as an end state, but not necessarily > as an incremental step. > I think I would be fine with not having test-function level resolution in v1 of the feature *if* there is a reasonable path forward to make that happen in the future. The RUN lines proposal seemed to make that hard if not impossible, but with a custom test format it seems plausible to reach that state incrementally.
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
