JDevlieghere added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45332#1058970, @zturner wrote:
> I don't think `sys.path` is set up correctly to be able to find the lldbtest > package from the `lldb/lit` folder. > > These things kind of evolved separately, and the `lldb/lit` folder was > created as a place to start iterating on LLVM-style lit / FileCheck tests. > These kind of tests -- by definition -- don't really use the SB API, so no > work was ever done to set up paths correctly so that it could write `import > lldb` or to re-use any of the other stuff from `packages/Python`. > > I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, but usually the canonical > structuring is to have the test files in the same tree as the lit > configuration. So perhaps you could put a lit configuration file in > `lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite` and have that be separate from `lldb/lit`, > with the goal of eventually (possibly) merging them. Then have a separate > CMake target so you'd still have `check-lldb-lit` which goes into the > `lldb/lit` directory, and another one like `check-lldb-lit-dotest` which > starts from the `lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite` directory. > > On the other hand, if you want to see how `dotest.py` sets up its `sys.path`, > have a look at `lldb/test/dotest.py` The magic is in this `use_lldb_suite` > function, which walks backwards through the tree until it finds the root, > then dives into the `lldbsuite` folder to manually add it to `sys.path`. Do you feel all that outweighs the alternative of just having the format in `llvm/Utils` as is the case in this diff? We already have some LLDB specific stuff there and I would argue that conceptually it makes (at least a little) sense to have all the format living together. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D45332 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
