zturner added reviewers: vsk, labath. zturner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53731#1276660, @jingham wrote:
> Could you also use Vedant's new FileCheck dotest test class? That should > allow you to write the tests exactly as you are, but use the dotest mechanism > to build and run the example. Adding Vedant here. My understanding is that the work he did there is like the inverse of what I'm doing. It allows you to use FileCheck from inside of dotest tests, but I was trying to bypass dotest here. I don't necessarily think "dotest for all things" should be an explicit goal (i actually think long term we should move away from it, but that's for another day). Aside from that though, I don't think this particular test needs any of the functionality that dotest offers. It offers building in multiple configurations, but we can get that from this test by just specifying mulitple run lines (I'm testing this out locally and it seems like I can get it to work). Eventually, using some kind of configuration / builder type system like I brainstormed in the review thread I linked previously, I think we could have all the advantages of dotest's builder even with this style of test. FWIW, I was also under the impression that Vedant's solution with FileCheck in dotest was only intended as sort of an immediate solution to a problem, but not necessary the long term desired end-state. (I could be wrong about this though). https://reviews.llvm.org/D53731 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
