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

[Zachary Turner via lldb-dev]

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.

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.

Can we get that same effect with a Make-based solution?

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:18 PM Jim Ingham <jingham at apple.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Jim
>
>
> > On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:07 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:04 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand:
> > - everybody already knows make
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > (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)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20180117/d00c1a48/attachment.html>