Sure, but getting lit to run one file at a time is a nice incremental step towards that and can make both patches easier to review. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:02 AM Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 2018, at 8:53 AM, Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > I forgot about the multiple tests-per-py-file scenario. I think it is > important to completely support this in the LIT driver. The whole point of > this exercise is to get dotest out of the business of scheduling tests so > the end-goal should be to have LIT recognize the individual functions as > tests. > > Side-question to Jonas: was your idea to run lit for each variant > (dwarf,dwo,dsym,...) or to have dotest spawn multiple versions of each test? > > 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. > > > As an intermediate step, we could also have one RUN line per test > function, but I see that that is a lot of work to maintain. > > -- adrian >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
