[lldb-dev] LLDB Evolution

[Zachary Turner via lldb-dev]

Definitely agree we can't map everything to that model. I can imagine a
first step towards lit being where all our tests are literally exactly the
same as they are today, with Makefiles and all, but where lit is used
purely to recurse the directory tree, run things in multiple processes, and
spawn workers.

Lit should be flexible enough to support this.

As a further step, imagine rewriting most tests as inline tests like
lldbinline. Lit can support this too, the parsing and file commands are all
up to the implementation. So the existing model of run tool and grep output
is just one implementation of that, but you could design one that has build
commands, c++ source, and Python all in one file, or even intermingled like
in an lldbinline test


On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 2:40 PM Kate Stone via lldb-dev <
>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> LLDB has come a long way since the project was first announced.  As a
>>> robust debugger for C-family languages and Swift, LLDB is constantly in use
>>> by millions of developers.  It has also become a foundation for bringing up
>>> debugger support for other languages like Go and RenderScript.  In addition
>>> to the original macOS implementation the Linux LLDB port is in active use
>>> and Windows support has made significant strides.  IDE and editor
>>> integration via both SB APIs and MI have made LLDB available to even more
>>> users.  It’s definitely a project every contributor can be proud of and I’d
>>> like to take a moment to thank everyone who has been involved in one way or
>>> another.
>>>
>>> It’s also a project that shows some signs of strain due to its rapid
>>> growth.  We’ve accumulated some technical debt that must be paid off, and
>>> in general it seems like a good time to reflect on where we'll be headed
>>> next.  We’ve outlined a few goals for discussion below as well as one more
>>> short-term action.  Discussion is very much encouraged.
>>>
>>> *Forward-Looking Goals*
>>>
>>>    1. Testing Strategy Evaluation
>>>
>>> Keeping our code base healthy is next to impossible without a robust
>>> testing strategy.  Our existing suite of tests is straightforward to run
>>> locally, and serves as a foundation for continuous integration.  That said,
>>> it is definitely not exhaustive.  Obvious priorities for improvement
>>> include gathering coverage information, investing in more conventional unit
>>> tests in addition to the suite of end-to-end tests, and introducing tests
>>> in code bases where we depend on debugger-specific behavior (e.g.: for
>>> expression evaluation.)
>>>
>>> I know this is going to be controversial, but I think we should at least
>> do a serious evaluation of whether using the lit infrastructure would work
>> for LLDB.  Conventional wisdom is that it won't work because LLDB tests are
>> fundamentally different than LLVM tests.  I actually completely agree with
>> the latter part.  They are fundamentally different.
>>
>> However, we've seen some effort to move towards lldb inline tests, and in
>> a sense that's conceptually exactly what lit tests are.  My concern is that
>> nobody with experience working on LLDB has a sufficient understanding of
>> what lit is capable of to really figure this out.
>>
>> I know when I mentioned this some months ago Jonathan Roelofs chimed in
>> and said that he believes lit is extensible enough to support LLDB's use
>> case.  The argument -- if I remember it correctly -- is that the
>> traditional view of what a lit test (i.e. a sequence of commands that
>> checks the output of a program against expected output) is one particular
>> implementation of a lit-style test.  But that you can make your own which
>> do whatever you want.
>>
>>
> I have some interest in looking into this.  Kate and I had talked about it
> as a possible investigation back a few months ago.  I'd be happy if we
> could reduce the overall complexity of building high quality tests.  I'd be
> particularly interested in learning more about the alternative workflow
> that isn't just "run/check/run/check", as I don't think we can map
> everything to that model.  I may take an action item on this in the near
> future.
>
>
>> This would not just be busy work either.  I think everyone involved with
>> LLDB has experienced flakiness in the test suite.  Sometimes it's flakiness
>> in LLDB itself, but sometimes it is flakiness in the test infrastructure.
>> It would be nice to completely eliminate one source of flakiness.
>>
>> I think it would be worth having some LLDB experts sit down in person
>> with some lit experts and brainstorm ways to make LLDB use lit.
>>
>> Certainly it's worth a serious look, even if nothing comes of it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>    4. Good Citizenship in the LLVM Community
>>>
>>> Last, but definitely not least, LLDB should endeavor to be a good
>>> citizen of the LLVM community.  We should encourage developers to think of
>>> the technology stack as a coherent effort, where common code should be
>>> introduced at an appropriate level in the stack.  Opportunities to factor
>>> reusable aspects of the LLDB code base up the stack into LLVM will be
>>> pursued.
>>>
>>> One arbitrary source of inconsistency at present is LLDB’s coding
>>> standard.  That brings us to…
>>>
>>> *Near-Term Goal: Standardizing on LLVM-style clang-format Rules*
>>>
>>> We’ve heard from several in the community that would prefer to have a
>>> single code formatting style to further unify the two code bases.  Using
>>> clang-format with the default LLVM conventions would simplify code
>>> migration, editor configuration, and coding habits for developers who work
>>> in multiple LLVM projects.  There are non-trivial implications to
>>> reformatting a code base with this much history.  It can obfuscate history
>>> and impact downstream projects by complicating merges.  Ideally, it should
>>> be done once with as much advance notice as is practical.  Here’s the
>>> timeline we’re proposing:
>>>
>>> *Today* - mechanical reformatting proposed, comment period begins
>>>
>>> To get a preview of what straightforward reformatting of the code looks
>>> like, just follow these steps to get a clean copy of the repository and
>>> reformat it:
>>>
>>>
>>>    1. Check out a clean copy of the existing repository
>>>    2. Edit .clang-format in the root of the tree, remove all but the
>>>    line “BasedOnStyle: LLVM”
>>>    3. Change your current working directory to the root of the tree to
>>>    reformat
>>>    4. Double-check to make sure you did step 3 ;-)
>>>    5. Run the following shell command: "find . -name "*.[c,cpp,h] -exec
>>>    clang-format -i {} +"
>>>
>>> Very excited about this one, personally.  While I have my share of
>> qualms with LLVM's style, the benefit of having consistency is hard to
>> overstate.  It greatly reduces the effort to switch between codebases, a
>> direct consequence of which is that it encourages people with LLVM
>> expertise to jump into the LLDB codebase, which hopefully can help to tear
>> down the invisible wall between the two.
>>
>> As a personal aside, this allows me to go back to my normal workflow of
>> having 3 edit source files opened simultaneously and tiled horizontally,
>> which is very nice.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lldb-dev mailing list
>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -Todd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20160825/ccf0d83e/attachment.html>