Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-14 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
I think I have a pretty good handle on what the problems are. I'm honestly surprised the lit test suite ever worked, even before my patch that "broke" it. We were basically just picking up whatever the system PATH was and just going with it, so a lot of the substitutions weren't actually substitu

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-14 Thread Stella Stamenova via lldb-commits
Simplifying (and making things more robust in the process) sounds great to me. I think the current iteration of how parameters are passed to the tests is quite complicated and unclear, so this will be a step in the right direction and if there’s a need for gcc later, we can take the time to desi

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-13 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
use_clang() already will fall back on searching the environment variable 'CLANG' to find a path to it. self.config.clang = self.use_llvm_tool( 'clang', search_env='CLANG', required=required) But we could make this environment variable a parameter to use_clang() if we wanted to

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-13 Thread Stella Stamenova via lldb-commits
The plan for the lit tests sounds reasonable to me. I would also remove LLDB_TEST_C/CXX_COMPILER entirely so that we can reduce confusion since they’re only used for the lit tests, right? My only concern is that I’ve been told that there are people who will build lldb with a different compiler

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-13 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
Ok so for dotest, it seems to be ignoring the config.cc and config.cxx entirely. So we can theoretically do whatever we want with it, or change around the directory structure so that it's more like: lldb * lit * * Dotest * * Unit * * Tests and put the config.cc / config.cxx logic under Tests. T

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-13 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:47 PM Stella Stamenova wrote: > I am not sure if that’s the right solution for a couple of reasons: > >1. As far as I can tell only clang calls use_clang (and only lld calls >use_lld), while the other projects such as lld and llvm rely on the >environment to

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-13 Thread Stella Stamenova via lldb-commits
Actually, I take 2) back. Lld doesn’t call use_clang, but it only references clang-cl, it doesn’t expect it to execute. From: Stella Stamenova Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 3:47 PM To: 'Zachary Turner' Cc: reviews+d54009+public+0e164460da8f1...@reviews.llvm.org; pa...@labath.sk; chris.biene.

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-13 Thread Stella Stamenova via lldb-commits
I am not sure if that’s the right solution for a couple of reasons: 1. As far as I can tell only clang calls use_clang (and only lld calls use_lld), while the other projects such as lld and llvm rely on the environment to be setup correctly 2. Lld also has tests that invoke clang-cl and th

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-13 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
I believe that is correct, and perhaps part of the problem. In other projects we call llvm_config.use_clang(), and that actually explicitly creates a substitution so that if someone writes "clang" they'll get an error that says "use %clang instead". Because we have the exact path, that isn't happ

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-13 Thread Stella Stamenova via lldb-commits
I took a brief look and I have a question about the usage of clang (rather than clang-cl). In general I would agree that we have an exact path of clang (or gcc) that we are trying to use and they’re specified by using %cc and %cxx in the test files, but there are a number of test files that sim

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-13 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
I think it must be related to setting up the environment in which to run clang. In all other projects we call llvm_config.use_clang() which is in llvm/utils/lit/lit/llvm/config.py, but because here we have an exact path of a clang we are trying to use, we skip this function in LLDB's lit configura

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-07 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
Actually maybe it’s the other way around. Are you specifying LLDB_TEST_COMPILER? If it’s picking up VS’s version, it would definitely be able to find link.exe On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 2:07 PM Stella Stamenova via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > stella.stamenova added a comment. > >

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-07 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
It’s possible we lost some environment variable propagation, that would do it. But I’m curious how it was finding the visual studio installation before my patch. It also looks like it’s failing finding link.exe (we really should make lld-link the default). Another fix is to pass -fuse-ld=lld or sp

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-07 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
I have not run the dotest suite recently, is that where you’re seeing the failures? I successfully ran the lit suite and unit tests though On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:32 PM Stella Stamenova via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > stella.stamenova added a comment. > > Several of the windo

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D54009: Refactor LLDB lit configuration files

2018-11-02 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
Fix incoming, sorry about that. On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:57 PM Jonas Devlieghere via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > JDevlieghere added a comment. > > Hi Zachary, looks like this broke GreenDragon: > http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake/12087/console > > Can y