> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:31 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > I don't think new test authors really need to add CMake any more so than they > currently need to understand Make. Which is to say, not very much. Most > Makefiles are currently 1-2 lines of code that simply does nothing other than > include the common Makefile. > > On the other hand, CMake defines a lot of constructs designed to support > portable builds, so actually writing and maintaining that common CMake build > file would be much easier. The existing Makefile-based system already > doesn't require you to understand the specific compiler invocations you want. > Here's 3 random Makefiles, which is hopefully representative given that I > pulled them completely at random. > > breakpoint-commands/Makefile: > LEVEL = ../../../make > CXX_SOURCES := nested.cpp > include $(LEVEL)/Makefile.rules > > functionalities/inferior-assert: > LEVEL = ../../make > C_SOURCES := main.c > include $(LEVEL)/Makefile.rules > > > types: > LEVEL = ../make > # Example: > # > # CXX_SOURCES := int.cpp > include $(LEVEL)/Makefile.rules > > None of this is particularly interesting. There are a very few tests that > need to do something weird. I opened 10 other random Makefiles and still > didn't find any. I don't believe it would be hard to support those cases. > > So now instead of "understand Make" it becomes "understand CMake". Whic is > already a requirement of building LLVM.
Fair point. I would suggest that I'll try to make LLDB's testsuite build out-of-tree using the existing Makefile system. That should be a generally useful first step. After doing this I will hopefully have a much better understanding of the requirements of the Makefiles and then we can revisit this idea with me actually knowing what I'm talking about :-) > If our test suite was lit-based where you actually had to write compiler > invocations into the test files, I would feel differently, but that isn't > what we have today. We have something that is almost a direct mapping to > using CMake. Question: how would you feel about converting the Makefiles to LIT-style .test files with very explicit RUN-lines? -- adrian _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
