probinson added a comment. In D61611#1496865 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61611#1496865>, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> In D61611#1496838 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61611#1496838>, @probinson wrote: > > > @stella.stamenova I'm not familiar with any lit feature that gives a > > special meaning to the prefix "no". The opposite of "REQUIRES: windows" is > > not "REQUIRES: nowindows" but "UNSUPPORTED: windows" AFAIK. > > This part of the discussion should probably be taken to llvm-dev, though. > > > > FTR I don't see that lldb's lit.cfg.py sets any features based on host OS, > > so even "UNSUPPORTED: windows" probably does not work currently. > > > @probinson LLDB's lit configuration derives from the lit configuration in > LLVM. The most important file you are looking for is: > > `llvm\utils\lit\lit\llvm\config.py` > > You can see there that we add various platform to the list of available > features including system-windows, so XFAIL: system-windows, UNSUPPORTED: > system-windows, etc. all work. > > This is also where binary_features are set, such as 'zlib/nozlib', > 'asan/not_asan' etc. The prefix varies for historical reasons, but the > paradigm has existed for a long time. If we wanted to support > nosystem-windows, we would add it here. Thanks @stella.stamenova I did find that. But I agree with Pavel, we are better off not having "nofoo" or "not_foo" features, because we can get the same effect using UNSUPPORTED: and it can mislead people into thinking the no/not_ prefix applies generally, and things like "REQUIRES: nowindows" will unexpectedly disable a test everywhere. I am going to propose eliminating the negative keywords on llvm-dev. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61611/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61611 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
