On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:10 AM Leonard Mosescu <mose...@google.com> wrote:
> I agree, checked in binaries are not always pretty. But some coverage > depends checked in binaries (or at very least is dramatically harder to get > the same thing from source) > > Are we saying that sacrificing coverage to keep tests smaller should be > the default trade off? > It's probably worth evaluating on a case by case basis. Often time there are ways to use lower level LLVM tools like llvm-mc, yaml2obj, etc so that we can construct binaries on the fly which are reproducible. In these cases we should check in the "meta-inputs" that allow us to reproducibly construct the test inputs on the fly. One can easily imagine the repository growing to many tens of gigabytes just due to test inputs, which is not really scalable.
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
