[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

Zachary Turner via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Apr 4 07:58:29 PDT 2018

I haven’t had time to look at this in detail yet, but when I originally had
this idea I thought we would use lit’s discovery mechanism to find all .py
files, and then invoke them using dotest.py in single process mode with a
path to a specific file.

Why do we need run lines?
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:04 AM Pavel Labath via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> labath added a comment.
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45215#1056731, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> > Alright, I'm convinced this is the way to go.
> >
> > - For (1) I'll see if I can get some inspiration from the visit logic in
> dotest.py. I guess the functionality is similar. I agree on doing this in a
> separate tool, especially if we want to remove functionality from dotest in
> the long run.
> I'm not aware of any code which would do the full visit. We have some code
> in dosep.py (`find_test_files_in_dir_tree`), but this one only does file
> traversal. It does not look inside the the files for classes, test methods
> and such.
> The real visiting happens inside unittest2 (loader.py). The code there
> seems very complicated, but I think that's because it tries to support
> various things we don't use, so /I hope/ that our visiting logic can be
> simpler.
> OTOH, looking at loader.py, it seems to me it may actually be possible to
> let it do the enumeration for us, if we stroke it the right way.
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D45215
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20180404/2872afc2/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the lldb-commits mailing list