aprantl added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lit/tools/lldb-mi/interpreter/cli-support/breakpoint-set.test:4 +# +# RUN: %cxx -o %t %p/inputs/main.cpp -g +# RUN: %lldbmi %t < %s | FileCheck %s ---------------- stella.stamenova wrote: > apolyakov wrote: > > stella.stamenova wrote: > > > apolyakov wrote: > > > > stella.stamenova wrote: > > > > > One thing to consider here is that any extra parameters passed with > > > > > -E to the test suite will not propagate to lit at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > I ran into this with some internal testing where we need to pass > > > > > parameters to the compiler - all of the lldb suite tests (c++ and c) > > > > > build correctly, but any lit tests that directly invoke the compiler > > > > > do not because the parameters do not get propagated all the way. > > > > Could you give an example of extra parameters? I didn't see them before > > > > so I don't completely understand you. > > > -E "--sysroot=path/to/sys/root -lc++abi -lunwind" > > Ok, I think we won't use something like it here. Thank you. > I think you misunderstood my concern - let's say I have a machine on which I > run these tests for a particular architecture that depends on passing these > arguments to the tests, so that clang (cxx) correctly complies c++ files. > *Before* your change, these arguments would have been propagated to the test > in the lldb suite and the code would have build correctly. *After* your > change, the code will no longer build correctly. > > Essentially, by making these tests lit tests, you are removing support for > passing these arguments to the compiler (since the lldb suite supports them > and lit does not). It might still be worth making these lit tests for the > sake of other benefits, but then such targets will end up having to XFAIL the > tests. > > If these tests really need to become lit tests and invoke the compiler, I > think you also need to add support for passing these arguments to the > compiler. > I think the best way to solve this is by adding the platform-specific flags to the expansion of `%cxx` in the lit configuration. Would that work here? Repository: rLLDB LLDB https://reviews.llvm.org/D50525 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
