JDevlieghere added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300459, @zturner wrote:
> I'm not sure how hard it would be. > > One problem is that dotest supports not just choosing a compiler, but > choosing multiple compilers, as well as multiple architectures and it runs > the test suite over the cross product of all of these. That's hard to > express in CMake. This is why, for example, people end up subverting it > entirely for productionizing test suite runs, such as what you see on the > ubuntu bot linked earlier. It doesn't even use the CMake variables for > running the dotest suite, it just has scripts that build command lines and > runs them. Makes sense. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating running a product for the lit suite, just having one option that controls both dotest and lit. > There is another issue I'm aware of, which is that some people's compilers > have version numbers embedded in the binary name. Right now the code that > uses `LLDB_LIT_TOOLS_DIR` to find the binaries won't handle these cases, > because it looks specifically for `clang` and `clang++`, but not, for > example, `clang-7.0` or `clang++-hexagon-7.0`. How is this handled today? Do we have tests that do something like that? > I do think an iterative approach is better though. This is already a big > change and as this thread (and the previous patch which is what I'm trying to > fix) shows, people use things in a lot of different ways so changing > something has potential for lots of breakage in subtle ways. So I still kind > of prefer doing things incrementally, letting people tell me what's broken, > and then working on a solution. I'm all for iteration! We just wanna make sure we share the same "end goal". > We could try to converge on the single `LLDB_LIT_TOOLS_DIR` approach for both > dotest as well as the lit suite, because having one variable with simple > semantics is nice. But I think we should worry first about getting to a > known good baseline and then working incrementally to make simplifications. I'm worried that the directory approach is incompatible with settings a specific compiler (like gcc). https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
