Do we not want to have an "options" global variable in this module that contains everything instead of having separate global variables in this file? The idea would be that you could assign directly when parsing arguments:
(configuration.options, args) = parser.parse_args(sys.argv[1:]) Its OK if we don't do this, but this is what I was originally thinking. Then we don't need to do any transfer out of the options dictionary that is returned by the option parser. The drawback with this approach is the "configuration.options" would probably need to be initialized in case someone tries to access the "configuration.options" without first parsing arguments. So in that respect the global approach is nicer. Greg > On Dec 8, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > Take a look at dotest.py next time you get some free time and let me know > what you think. There should be no more globals. Everything that used to be > a global is now stored in its own module `configuration.py`, and everything > in `configuration.py` can be referenced from everywhere in the entire test > suite. > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:34 AM Greg Clayton <gclay...@apple.com> wrote: > Zach, I would also like to get rid of all global variables in the process of > this change. The history goes like this: a long time ago someone wrote the > initial dotest.py and parsed the options manually and stored results in > global variables. Later, someone converted the options over to use a python > library to parse the options, but we mostly copied the options from the > options dictionary over into the globals and still use the globals all over > the code. It would be great if we had at most one global variable that is > something like "g_options" and anyone that was using any global variables > will switch over to use the "g_options.XXXX" instead. Then we don't have to > make copies and we can let the g_options contain all settings that are > required. > > > On Nov 18, 2015, at 2:32 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev > > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > I would like to do a complete audit of dotest's command line options, find > > out who's using what, and then potentially delete anything that isn't being > > used. There's a mess of command line options in use, to the point that > > it's often hard to find free letters to use for new options. > > > > I created this spreadsheet with a complete list of command line options, > > their descriptions, and a place for people to enter what options they're > > using or do not want to be deleted. > > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wkxAY7l0_cJOHhhsSlh3aKKlQShlX1D7X1Dn8kpqxy4/edit?usp=sharing > > > > If someone has already written YES in the box that indicates they need the > > option, please don't overwrite it. If you write YES in a box, please > > provide at least a small rationale for why this option is useful to you. > > Feel free to add additional rationale if someone has already added some > > rationale. > > > > I'm going to have a couple days in mid-December and do this cleanup, so I'd > > like to get a solid picture of what options are not needed before then. > > After people have had some time to look over this, I'll go through the > > results and decide what to do with each one, and then send out another > > email with a proposed action column for each command line option. > > > > Please do take the time to have a look at this, because any option that > > doesn't have a YES in it after a couple of weeks I'm going to assume is a > > candidate for deletion. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lldb-dev mailing list > > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
