[lldb-dev] LLDB test executable architectures

[Greg Clayton]

That sounds fine to me.

> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> 
> So just to be clear, assuming I made this change, I'm not saying that dotest would require you to pass in --arch, I'm just saying it would pick a more straightforward default.  In particular, the default of your host system.  You can see the original logic for choosing the default in the OP, but it was something along the lines of:
> 
> x64 Mac -> x86 + x64 tests
> x86 Mac -> x86 tests
> x64 Linux Clang -> x86 + x64 tests
> x64 Linux Non-Clang (GCC?)  x64 tests
> x86 Linux Clang -> x86 tests
> x86 Linux Non-Clang -> x86 tests
> 
> So you'd have the following net changes:
> 
> x64 Mac -> Don't run x86 tests anymore
> x64 Linux Clang -> Don't run x86 tests anymore
> 
> Nothing else would change.  And again, these would just be for the cases where you ran dotest.py without a --arch arg.  You could still override it.
> 
> If it's truly useful then I don't mind leaving it, but I'd at least like to understand why it's so asymmetric.  Like what's the issue with Linux GCC x64?  Why can't it run x86 tests?
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Matthew Gardiner <mg11 at csr.com> wrote:
> Just recently I figured out how to successfully run dotest.py on a 64-bit linux. I ran it from the command line as follows:
> 
> $ my-lldb-source-directory/test >
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/my-build-directory/lib/
> PYTHONPATH=/my-build-directory/lib/python2.7/site-packages/
> python dotest.py --executable=/my-build-directorybin/lldb -v --compiler=gcc -q .
> 
> The above incarnation took some time to figure out!
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is if dotest.py is changed in such a way that it needs to be run using another tool, and/or if the -arch setting must be passed in, then this should be documented *within* dotest.py itself.
> 
> 
> Zachary Turner wrote:
> Well I guess it would be helpful to know how you run the tests.  Do you run dotest.py from the command line?  Or do you have a tool that drives the script?  Because if it's the latter, then the tool can just pass in whatever architectures it wants.  I have a patch to the CMake build right now that makes the CMake build always pass in the target architectures.  So that will remove the need for this logic for anyone running tests via CMake.  But I'm not sure what you do on Mac.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that complicated logic is fine if it's useful.  I just don't know if it's useful (maybe it is, but I don't know what the workflow is like on Mac).  If you guys are already running all the tests via a tool that passes in --arch on the command line, or if you're willing to change whatever tool you do use (the Xcode project?) to pass in --arch, then the logic here probably isn't that useful.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com <mailto:gclayton at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
>     If the logic is broken, please fix, but don't remove or simplify
>     it just because it is complex. Make sure that if a platform (like
>     darwin) supports both x86_64 and i386 binaries, that the tests run
>     for both so we cover all bases and know if something fails for 32
>     or 64 bit. Sounds like on Windows you only want to run x86_64 for
>     64 bit machines or i386 for 32 bit machine right?
> 
>     Just make sure Darwin runs both with what ever fix you make.
> 
>     > On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:22 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com
>     <mailto:zturner at google.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Currently dotest.py contains the following logic to determine
>     what architectures to compile the test executables as:
>     >
>     >     if args.archs:
>     >         # architectures were specified on the command line, just
>     use them
>     >     else:
>     >         if (platform_system == 'Darwin' or (platform_system ==
>     'Linux' and compilers == ['clang'])) and platform_machine == 'x86_64':
>     >             archs = ['x86_64', 'i386']
>     >         else:
>     >             archs = [platform_machine]
>     >
>     > Does anyone actually need this kind of complicated logic?  It's
>     kind of magical and hand-wavy.  There's no indication of why it
>     makes sense that Darwin+x64 system would default to running both
>     x64 and x86 tests, or why linux gcc x64 would run only x64 tests
>     but not x86 tests, even though linux clang x64 would run both sets
>     of tests.
>     >
>     > I'd like to simplify it if possible (partly because this logic
>     is actually broken on Windows, so I need to revisit it anyway).
>      Is there any reason we can't just keep it as simple as "If it's
>     on the command line, use it, otherwise default to running only the
>     tests corresponding to the system platform?"
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > lldb-dev mailing list
>     > lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
>     > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To report this email as spam click here <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/MZbqvYs5QwJvpeaetUwhCQ==>.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
> 
> 
> 
> Member of the CSR plc group of companies. CSR plc registered in England and Wales, registered number 4187346, registered office Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WZ, United Kingdom
> More information can be found at www.csr.com. Keep up to date with CSR on our technical blog, www.csr.com/blog, CSR people blog, www.csr.com/people, YouTube, www.youtube.com/user/CSRplc, Facebook, www.facebook.com/pages/CSR/191038434253534, or follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/CSR_plc.
> New for 2014, you can now access the wide range of products powered by aptX at www.aptx.com.
>