<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Zachary Turner <<a href="mailto:zturner@google.com" class="">zturner@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">I don't know what would be involved in getting the tests building out of tree with Make. But I do know it would be simple with CMake. I'm sure it's probably not terrible with Make either, I just don't know enough about it to say.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">One thing that I do like about CMake is that it can be integrated into the existing LLDB build configuration step, which already uses CMake, to build inferiors up front. This has the potential to speed up the test suite by an order of magnitude.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Since the tests in the LLDB testsuite are typically very small and don't import a lot of headers I'm not convinced that an incremental build of the tests will have a very big impact on the running time of the testsuite, but to be honest I also haven't benchmarked it to see where the time is really spent.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-- adrian</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Can we get that same effect with a Make-based solution?</div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:18 PM Jim Ingham <<a href="mailto:jingham@apple.com" class="">jingham@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Yeah, w.r.t. the actual builder part, it seems to me any option is going to be sufficiently simple to use that it would be hard for the incremental benefits to lldb developers to ever amortize the cost of switching. The only compelling reason to me is if one or the other tool made it much easier to get building the test cases out of tree working, but that seems unlikely.<br class="">
<br class="">
Jim<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
> On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:07 PM, Zachary Turner <<a href="mailto:zturner@google.com" target="_blank" class="">zturner@google.com</a>> wrote:<br class="">
><br class="">
><br class="">
><br class="">
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:04 PM Adrian Prantl <<a href="mailto:aprantl@apple.com" target="_blank" class="">aprantl@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br class="">
><br class="">
> On the other hand:<br class="">
> - everybody already knows make<br class="">
><br class="">
> I'm not sold on this particular reason. Make is not the LLVM build system, CMake is. "I don't know the build system of the project I actually work on, but I do know this other build system" is not a compelling argument.<br class="">
><br class="">
> (As an aside, not every knows Make that well, but it doesn't actually matter because the amount of actual Make code is negligibly small, i.e. 1-2 lines per test in a vast majority of cases)<br class="">
<br class="">
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>