labath wrote: > > You could make the test binary a cmake dependency, see > > `lldb/test/CMakeLists.txt`. Perhaps in: > > ``` > > if(TARGET lldb-server) > > add_lldb_test_dependency(lldb-server) > > endif() > > ``` > > Just so it's clear, it is not lldb-server itself that is the slow dependency, > but the cpp file in the test directory. I think you mean we could create a > new binary from the test file. > > Pulling out the [cpp > file](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/lldb/test/API/tools/lldb-server/main.cpp) > into a separate tool might work. I don't know if there are any issues trying > that. It's now building with the just-built clang binaries hooks into the > dotest build system which seems to allow more flexibility in building it in > different ways at test runtime (although I'm not sure we actually rely on > that flexibility).
I think that would be a problem for remote tests (where the architecture of the binary needs to be different from the lldb architecture) and would be a significant change in how the tests work. I really wouldn't want to go in that direction. What I could imagine is building the binary in the "static" `setUpClass` method so that it's only built once per test, but I suspect that even that could run be fairly tricky. It might be easiest to just merge some trivial tests. Targeted tests are sort of a "best practice", but there's obviously a tradeoff between that and test startup time, and I think some of these are going too far. For example, I don't think that `test_Hg_fails_on_another_pid` and `test_Hg_fails_on_zero_pid` really need to be separate tests (I'm not even sure we really need both of those). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/129614 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
