> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:50 PM, Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> 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? > > I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Instead of using a build system at all to build the tests, we would hard-code the compiler and linker invocations without encoding any dependencies. Because we still need this to be configurable, it would probably look something like this: RUN: %CXX test.cpp -O0 %CXXFLAGS -o test.exe RUN: %test_driver test.exe mytest.py -- adrian > > Jim > > >> >> -- adrian _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
