REPOSITORY rL LLVM ================ Comment at: libcxx/trunk/test/libcxx/test/format.py:63 @@ -62,1 +62,3 @@ + if test.config.unsupported: + return (lit.Test.UNSUPPORTED, ---------------- EricWF wrote: > jroelofs wrote: > > EricWF wrote: > > > jroelofs wrote: > > > > EricWF wrote: > > > > > I don't think we should be using this. Why not put the metadata into > > > > > the tests? > > > > This is how the tests in llvm/test/CodeGen work. I think it cleans > > > > things up **significantly**. I view it as a mistake that I did the > > > > libcpp-has-no-threads UNSUPPORTEDs this way.... it's a bit painful to > > > > maintain them. > > > My concern is that we accidentally don't run tests because they were > > > mistakenly put in a directory with a lit.site.cfg that marks all the > > > tests as unsupported. > > > > > > I also think that lit.TestRunner.parseIntegratedTestScript may already > > > handle this but I'll have to double check. > > > My concern is that we accidentally don't run tests because they were > > > mistakenly put in a directory with a lit.site.cfg that marks all the > > > tests as unsupported. > > > > `--show-unsupported` takes care of that, no? > > > > > I also think that lit.TestRunner.parseIntegratedTestScript may already > > > handle this but I'll have to double check. > > > > Apparently not, or there's some flag that I missed that makes it happen... > > I debugged it a bit this morning before suggesting these lines to @ed > `--show-unsupported` should *help* but you still need to be watching it > carefully and understand what tests are actually unsupported. > > At least with requiring the metadata in the test I can check the commit that > put that line in there. If a test is added to a directory that has a > `lit.site.cfg` it's a little harder to figure out. > > I don't really mind the extra maintenance cost because it make things more > explicit and clear to readers of the test. > > Anyway I don't strongly object to this change so I'll drop the subject. What if they got marked in the `lit.local.cfg` as xfail instead of unsupported? I could see that being quite a bit less risky as the tests would still get run regardless of the feature.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D8194 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
