[PATCH] D154984: [lit] Drop "Script:", make -v and -a imply -vv

Wed Jul 12 08:19:22 PDT 2023

awarzynski added a comment.

In D154984#4491399 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D154984#4491399>, @jdenny wrote:

> In case it wasn't clear, with this patch, you do see the fully expanded RUN lines that actually execute, as in the trace of any shell language (or any that I've used).

Yes, but together with all the other test output, which can be very noisy :(

> If a RUN line fails, you don't see the remaining RUN lines that didn't execute.  Are you saying you would like to see those too?

I meant something slightly different. Some `RUN` get very complicated - especially when adding `{RE}DEFINE` to the mix and e.g. emulators to run tests on.  I would like to be able to simply check that LIT correctly interprets my `RUN` lines without running the tests (which can take some time to run and generate a lot of output). I think that that would be very useful. And looks like it's going to get harder to achieve :/

Btw, this patch changes the semantics of LIT. I think that it would be good post a short RFC on Discourse and to advertise this. Some people might rely on the current behavior. Or perhaps this has already been discussed somewhere?

================
Comment at: llvm/utils/lit/tests/Inputs/shtest-if-else/test.txt:9
 # RUN: %if feature %{ echo "test-1" %}
-# CHECK-NEXT: {{^.*'RUN}}: at line [[#@LINE-1]]'; echo "test-1"
+#  CHECK-NEXT: {{^.*"RUN}}: at line [[#@LINE-1]]"
+#       CHECK: # command output:
----------------
jdenny wrote:
> awarzynski wrote:
> > IIUC, full RUN line would be printed here, right?
> Yes.  Previously, this test was looking in the "Script:" section to verify correct expansion of `%if`.  Now that "Script:" is gone, I changed it to just look for correct stdout from the executed command.  Perhaps I should have changed it to look at the printed RUN line (from -vv)?  What do you think?  @asavonic might also want to comment, as he wrote the original test.
Hm, so this patch gets rid of "Script", but everything else remains intact, right. The changes in tests suggest that it;s a bit more intrusive, hence my original question.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D154984/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D154984