> On Aug 14, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 5:56 PM Vedant Kumar <v...@apple.com > <mailto:v...@apple.com>> wrote: > > >> On Aug 14, 2018, at 5:34 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com >> <mailto:ztur...@google.com>> wrote: >> >> I’ve thought about this in the past but the conclusion I came to is that >> lldbinline tests are actually just filecheck tests in disguise. Why do we >> need both? I’d rather delete the lldbinline infrastructure entirely and make >> a new lit TestFormat that basically does what lldbinline already does > > An inline test does more than simply pattern-matching input. It builds a > program, sets breakpoints, etc. I'd rather make this existing infrastructure > easier to use than come up with something new. > > vedant > > Right, but only one specific type of lit test depends on pattern matching, > and those are the SHTest format tests. You can make an arbitrary test > format, including one that builds programs, set breakpoints etc. the format > and structure of an lldbinline test need not even change at all (except that > I think we could eliminate the .py file). The lldbinline tests are about as > close to a drop in fit for lit as we can get, the only thing that needs to > happen is the code in lldbinline.py needs to move to something called > InlineTestFormat.py and then be hooked into lit
Creating a new lit test format compatible with inline tests sounds like a nice follow-up step. The immediate problem I'm trying to address is that it's too cumbersome to write the tests I need without FileCheck-like checks in inline tests. I think introducing this functionality is a necessary prerequisite. vedant
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
