[lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

Vedant Kumar via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jan 17 13:45:04 PST 2018

I would prefer having all of our test dependencies tracked by CMake for all the reasons Zach brought up, but I think we should defer that undertaking until after the bots are more stable. We have some immediate problems caused by stale in-tree test artifacts. As a first milestone, it'd be great to not have to run `git clean -fdx` anymore.

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 1:13 PM, Davide Italiano via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Davide Italiano <dccitaliano at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Adrian Prantl via lldb-dev
>> <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> Hi lldb-dev!
>>> I've been investigating some spurious LLDB test suite failures on http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/ that had to do with build artifacts from previous runs lying around in the test directories and this prompted me to ask a couple of general noob questions about the LLDB testsuite.
>>> My understanding is that all execution tests are compiled using using `make` in-tree. I.e.: the test driver (dotest.py) effectively executes something equivalent to `cd $srcdir/packages/.../mytest && make`. And it does this in a serial fashion for all configurations (dwarf, dSYM, dwo, ...) and relies on the `clean` target to be implemented correctly.
>>> I don't understand all the design decisions that went into the LLDB testsuite, but my naive intuition tells me that this is sub-optimal (because of the serialization of the configurations) and dangerous (because it relies on make clean being implemented correctly). It seems to me that a better approach would be to create a separate build directory for each test variant and then invoke something like `cd $builddir/test/mytest.dwarf && make -C $srcdir/packages/.../mytest`. This way all configurations can build in parallel, and we can simply nuke the build directory afterwards and this way get rid of all custom implementations of the `clean` target.

This sgtm as a starting point.


>>> - Is this already possible, and/or am I misunderstanding how it works?
>>> - Would this be a goal that is worthwhile to pursue?
>>> - Is there a good reason why we are not already doing it this way?
>> As we're discussing lldb test suite changes, another detail that I
>> find a little weird is that every time you execute the test suite you
>> get a new build directory named after the time at which you run the
>> test.
>> It would be much much better IMHO to just have a `log/` generic
>> directory where the failures are logged, and those who want to
>> override this setting can just pass a flag.
> (The logs should also be moved out of tree, FWIW).
> --
> Davide
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list