zturner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52618#1251076, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52618#1250909, @zturner wrote: > > > One idea would be to define some lit substitutions like %debuginfo. It’s > > true you can produce a gcc style command line that will be equivalent to a > > clang-cl invocation but it won’t be easy. eg you’ll needing to pass > > -fms-compatibility as well as various -I for includes. > > > > It may be easier to have substitutions instead > > > Another option would be to define a way in lit to specify a command to run > based on requirements - similar how we can use "windows" or "linux" in the > "requires" command. Yea that would work too. `REQUIRES` isn't quite the right thing because that just makes the infrastructure decide whether to run or skip your test. It would need to be something different, like `COMPILATION_SETTINGS: debug, opt, noexcept`. But I think that would be quite a bit of work and probably not fit nicely with the existing `ShTest`. You might need a subclass of `ShTest` like `LLDBShTest` that can extend its functionality a bit. https://reviews.llvm.org/D52618 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
