Our Windows buildbots use msys for gnuisms. The makefiles in the test suite run fine with minimal modifications (just the object delete hack Zach put in to use del instead of rm; msys make doesn't accept cmd syntax while Cygwin make does). Now, that's using clang to build Hexagon binaries, but teaching the makefile to use cl syntax shouldn't be too hard. I've seen it done before; same makefile for windows and various unix derivatives, detect what OS you were running on and set CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS accordingly.
Ted -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project > -----Original Message----- > From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Pavel > Labath via lldb-dev > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 12:45 PM > To: Leonard Mosescu <mose...@google.com> > Cc: aaron.lee.sm...@gmail.com; LLDB <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> > Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] Proposal: Using LLD in tests > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 at 18:19, Leonard Mosescu <mose...@google.com> > wrote: > > >> the PDB tests under lit/SymbolFile/PDB need a linker to produce > >> the > program database > > > > With this proposal, would we preserve any coverage for MSVC produced > debug information? > > > Well.. the question there is what are you trying to test? Is it the fact your > debugger works with a particular compiler+linker combination (note that those > tests already compile with clang-cl), or that your pdb-parsing code is sane. > (integration vs. regression test). > > Historically we've only had the former kind of tests (dotest), and we've had > the > ability (and used it) to run those tests against different kinds of > compilers. This > is all nice, but it means that a specific test will be testing a different > thing for > every person who runs it. That's why I would like to build up a suite of more > regression-like tests (*). I would say that the tests under lit/*** should be > regression tests and our goal should be to remove as many system > dependencies as possible, and leave the job of testing integration with a > specific toolchain to "dotest" tests (**). > > Technically, the answer to your question is "no", because currently dotest > tests > don't know how to work with cl+link. Making that work would be an interesting > project (although a bit annoying as the Makefiles are full of gcc-isms). > However, I don't think that should stop us here. > > (*) Ideally I would like to leave even the compiler out of the equation for > these > tests, and make it so that the tests always run on the exact same set of > bytes. I > am hoping I will be able to write at least some tests using .s files. > However, I > don't think I will do that for all of them, because these files can be > long/verbose/tedious to write. > > (**) However, even "dotest" tests should have a "default" mode which is as > hermetic as possible. > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
