This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rC347216: Fix some issues with LLDB's lit configuration
files. (authored by zturner, committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567?vs=174
zturner added a subscriber: stella.stamenova.
zturner added a comment.
Well msvc implies system-windows, but i can have both
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mail
Well msvc implies system-windows, but i can have both
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:37 PM Stella Stamenova via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> stella.stamenova accepted this revision.
> stella.stamenova added a comment.
> This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
>
> Feel free
stella.stamenova accepted this revision.
stella.stamenova added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Feel free to check this in. At this point this will only improve the results on
Windows and it works correctly on Linux.
Comment at: lldb/lit/SymbolFile/
zturner updated this revision to Diff 174473.
zturner added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: ki.stfu.
- Added an `__init__.py` to the helper directory. This is required on Python 2
to make the import work.
- Changed a bunch of `%cc` substitutions to `%clang`.
- Changed the `%clang_cl` comma
JDevlieghere added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300670, @zturner wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300641, @JDevlieghere wrote:
>
> > Makes sense. Just to be clear, I'm not advocating running a product for the
> > lit suite, just having one option that controls both
zturner added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300641, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> 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 com
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
zturner added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300183, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> Personally I don't think we should differentiate between the lit and dotest
> suite when it comes to using a custom compiler. The separation between the
> two suits is mostly the result of what framework
stella.stamenova added a comment.
> That said, in the interest of not changing too much all at once, it still
> seems like something that's perhaps better done in a future patch. WDYT?
I actually think it would be better now - the people who use the properties for
compile the lit tests will
JDevlieghere added a comment.
Personally I don't think we should differentiate between the lit and dotest
suite when it comes to using a custom compiler. The separation between the two
suits is mostly the result of what framework is easier to write your test is
(or which one you're more familia
zturner added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300083, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300064, @zturner wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300029, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#129, @zturner wro
stella.stamenova added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300064, @zturner wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300029, @stella.stamenova wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#129, @zturner wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#123, @stella.stam
zturner added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300029, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#129, @zturner wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#123, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#122, @aprantl wro
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#127, @zturner wrote:
> >
> > > It's possible I didn't make this part clear enough. I didn't mean that
>
zturner added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300029, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#129, @zturner wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#123, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#122, @aprantl wro
zturner added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300031, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300030, @aprantl wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#130, @zturner wrote:
> >
> > > http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake-clang-5.
zturner added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300028, @aprantl wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#127, @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 usin
stella.stamenova added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1300030, @aprantl wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#130, @zturner wrote:
>
> > http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake-clang-5.0.2/
> >
> > What do I need to click on to get the equivalent of this:
stella.stamenova added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#129, @zturner wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#123, @stella.stamenova wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#122, @aprantl wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1299989, @stella.stam
aprantl added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#130, @zturner wrote:
> http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake-clang-5.0.2/
>
> What do I need to click on to get the equivalent of this:
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake/builds/312
aprantl added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#127, @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
zturner added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#128, @aprantl wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#123, @stella.stamenova wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#122, @aprantl wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1299989, @stella.stamenova wro
zturner added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#123, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#122, @aprantl wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1299989, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> >
> > > We should also remove LLDB_TEST_C_COMPILER and LLDB_TEST
aprantl added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#123, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#122, @aprantl wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1299989, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> >
> > > We should also remove LLDB_TEST_C_COMPILER and LLDB_TEST
zturner added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1299982, @aprantl wrote:
> > Removal of functionality - The lit test suite no longer respects
> > LLDB_TEST_C_COMPILER and LLDB_TEST_CXX_COMPILER. This means there is no
> > more support for gcc, but nobody was using this anyway (note:
stella.stamenova added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#122, @aprantl wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1299989, @stella.stamenova wrote:
>
> > We should also remove LLDB_TEST_C_COMPILER and LLDB_TEST_CXX_COMPILER from
> > the cmake files along with this change, otherw
aprantl added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567#1299989, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> We should also remove LLDB_TEST_C_COMPILER and LLDB_TEST_CXX_COMPILER from
> the cmake files along with this change, otherwise, people will still expect
> them to work.
That would not be a good ide
aprantl added a comment.
There is also this bot that does something similar with even more compilers,
including gcc:
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake/builds/31242
Do you happen to know who maintains it?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567
___
stella.stamenova added a comment.
We should also remove LLDB_TEST_C_COMPILER and LLDB_TEST_CXX_COMPILER from the
cmake files along with this change, otherwise, people will still expect them to
work.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54567
___
lldb-commits
aprantl added a comment.
> Removal of functionality - The lit test suite no longer respects
> LLDB_TEST_C_COMPILER and LLDB_TEST_CXX_COMPILER. This means there is no more
> support for gcc, but nobody was using this anyway (note: The functionality is
> still there for the dotest suite, just not
zturner created this revision.
zturner added reviewers: stella.stamenova, labath, aleksandr.urakov, rnk.
Herald added subscribers: jfb, arphaman, delcypher, JDevlieghere, aheejin,
aprantl, mgorny.
Herald added a reviewer: alexshap.
Recently I tried to port LLDB's lit configuration files over to u
32 matches
Mail list logo
