aprantl added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300035, @zturner wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300028, @aprantl wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1299997, @zturner wrote: > > > > > It's possible I didn't make this part clear enough. I didn't mean that > > > nobody is using `LLDB_TEST_C_COMPILER`, I meant that nobody is using it > > > **in order to compile inferiors with gcc**. There is also a dichotomy > > > between what happens for the dotest suite and the lit suite. For the > > > dotest suite, `LLDB_TEST_C(XX)_COMPILER` are still respected, this patch > > > hasn't changed that. It has only changed the behavior of running tests > > > in `lldb/lit/{Breakpoint/Expr/Modules/Quit/Settings/SymbolFile/tools}`. > > > Even for those tests, it is still possible to use a not-just-built clang, > > > just that instead of specifying `LLDB_TEST_C(XX)_COMPILER`, you now > > > specify `LLDB_LIT_TOOLS_DIR`. > > > > > > Thanks, that makes more sense to me! (I'm still not sure that it is correct > > though: cf. > > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake/builds/31242) > > > FWIW this bot appears unmaintained. I can try to contact the owner though. > That aside, it looks like this bot directly runs `dotest.py` and constructs > the command line itself > (http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake/builds/31242/steps/test1/logs/stdio). > The first few lines of output in the stdio look like this: Thanks for checking! It would be unfortunate if it is unmaintained, because bots like that one are a very valuable sanity-check against symmetric bugs, where, e.g., someone misinterprets the DWARF spec and then implements the same wrong behavior in both clang and LLDB. https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
