[LLVMdev] Building sanitizers for Android

[Evgeniy Stepanov]

Both %run and my symlink approach add certain (yet undocumented)
requirements on the tests, but they should be 100% robust if those
requirements are followed.
Greg, do you copy binaries to the device on %clang or on %run? The
latter would miss shared libraries that are not executed directly.
Environment can be recreated on the device, my script attempts to do
it (for several whitelisted variables).
We don't preserve ulimit setting, I modified one or two tests to not
rely on that.

I don't mind switching to a combined approach - copy to device on
%clang, and replace symlink hacks with %run.



On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote:
>> We considered adding "%run" to all binary invocations,
>> but dropped this idea. I don't remember the details, but IIRC %run is
>> just not general enough.
>
>
> IMHO this is where simplicity of lit approach starts to fail - important
> information (environment variables, dependent shared libs, expected test
> status, etc.) is buried inside arbitrarily complex runstrings.
>
> -Y