[PATCH] D96662: [lit] Add --skip (inverse of --filter)

[James Henderson via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jhenderson added a comment.

In D96662#2563106 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96662#2563106>, @thopre wrote:

> In D96662#2563019 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96662#2563019>, @jhenderson wrote:
>
>> This definitely seems like something we could use. I haven't looked at the implementation yet, but just thinking about the feature - would it be better to have a flag that marks the test as XFAIL instead? This would mean that once the issue is fixed, the continued use of the switch would cause an XPASS, indicating the switch could be dropped. What do you think?
>
> On the other hand, someone might use LIT_SKIP to skip tests that take too long time to run only on slow machine (others would have no LIT_SKIP). Marking the tests as XFAIL would prevent to skip passing tests.

The specified use-case in the description is about regressions, which I assume mean test failures, not slower tests.

That being said, if there's a requested use-case for actually skipping tests, due to resource limitations of the machine, maybe a complement to my suggestion would be to have an "UNSUPPORTED" equivalent.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D96662/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D96662