[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46005: [test] Add a utility for dumping all tests in the dotest suite

Zachary Turner via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Apr 25 08:13:11 PDT 2018

Well let’s see what Davide and Adrian think. I’m more of an outsider these
days so consider my perspective an llvm-centric one, which would sometimes
(but not always) be the best for lldb
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:31 AM Pavel Labath via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> labath added a comment.
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46005#1077016, @zturner wrote:
> > Note that there's currently no precedent (that i'm aware of anwyay) in
> LLVM or any of its subprojects for splitting the running of a single file
> into multiple parallel jobs.  All of LLVM's other projects parallelize at
> file granularity, and so it's up to to the person writing tests to ensure
> that the file granularity matches that with which they want tests to be
> parallelized at.
> There's always gtest. Regardless of whether you consider a .cpp file or
> the built exectable to be a "test file", it will generally contain a number
> of tests. And arguably, our test suite is more similar to the gtest suite
> than the traditional lit (ShTest) suites (for one, it hijacks a third party
> unit testing library, and then tries to make it run under lit). And we run
> all gtest tests individually (I've often wondered what kind of performance
> impact that has, but they seem to be running fast enough anyway...).
> For what it's worth, paralelization is not my motivation here. There some
> tests which run disproportionately long, and this will speed them up, but
> that may be offset by the fact we need to start more work this way (if
> anyone is interested I can try to do some measurements). My main reason for
> doing this is so that we can have better mapping of test result states. As
> it stands now, we only have two possible results for a test: passed or
> failed. Lit has more results than that, and they roughly match the existing
> dotest states (the different treatment of XFAILs is the biggest
> difference), so it should be possible to represent them with more fidelity.
> However, right now it's not possible to translate them reasonably, as a
> "single test" can result in any number of fails/xfails/skips/... (or no
> results at all).
> > That doesn't mean it's not possible (as you've shown here), but it adds
> some additional complexity and I'm not sure it's worth it.
> It adds complexity, but not much imho. I was actually pleasantly surprised
> at how easy it was to pull this off. The entire implementation is 78 LOC
> right now. The changes to the test format will probably push it over a 100,
> but not by much.
> That said, I am not interested in forcing this onto everyone. I did it
> because it seemed like a nice thing to have and I was curious if it is
> doable (easily). However, if there's no interest for it, then I can just
> abandon it..
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D46005
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20180425/26eb78e9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the lldb-commits mailing list