[PATCH] D150856: [lit] Add %{for-each-file} substitution

[Joel E. Denny via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jdenny added a comment.

What about the following instead?

  // RUN: split-file %s %t
  // PYTHON: for file in os.listdir(lit.substs['%t']):
  // PYTHON:   lit.run('%clang_cc1 -std=c++98 -verify -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors ' + file)
  // PYTHON:   lit.run('%clang_cc1 -std=c++11 -verify -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors ' + file)
  // PYTHON:   lit.run('%clang_cc1 -std=c++14 -verify -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors ' + file)
  // PYTHON:   lit.run('%clang_cc1 -std=c++17 -verify -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors ' + file)
  // PYTHON:   lit.run('%clang_cc1 -std=c++20 -verify -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors ' + file)
  // PYTHON:   lit.run('%clang_cc1 -std=c++23 -verify -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors ' + file)

In other words, instead of incrementally designing, debating, and maintaining more and more lit features to try to address every use case in the most ideal manner, eventually ending up with a full blown scripting language in lit, why don't we invest that effort in connecting to an existing scripting language? Python seems like the obvious choice.  This would open so many more doors than one more lit control structure.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D150856/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D150856