Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
llvm-epi-0.8
Manage
Activity
Members
Code
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Deploy
Releases
Model registry
Analyze
Contributor analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
This is an archived project. Repository and other project resources are read-only.
Show more breadcrumbs
Roger Ferrer
llvm-epi-0.8
Commits
89d03217
Commit
89d03217
authored
11 years ago
by
Daniel Dunbar
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
[lit] Add a TODO.
llvm-svn: 189546
parent
bef5955e
No related branches found
Branches containing commit
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
llvm/utils/lit/TODO
+29
-0
29 additions, 0 deletions
llvm/utils/lit/TODO
with
29 additions
and
0 deletions
llvm/utils/lit/TODO
+
29
−
0
View file @
89d03217
...
...
@@ -121,6 +121,35 @@ Infrastructure
tests, or add additional features to the internal shell handling to allow
them to pass.
5. Consider changing core to support setup vs. execute distinction.
Many of the existing test formats are cleanly divided into two phases, once
parses the test format and extracts XFAIL and REQUIRES information, etc., and
the other code actually executes the test.
We could make this distinction part of the core infrastructure and that would
enable a couple things:
* The REQUIREs handling could be lifted to the core, which is nice.
* This would provide a clear place to insert subtest support, because the
setup phase could be responsible for providing subtests back to the
core. That would provide part of the infrastructure to parallelize them, for
example, and would probably interact well with other possible features like
parameterized tests.
* This affords a clean implementation of --no-execute.
* One possible downside could be for test formats that cannot determine their
subtests without having executed the test. Supporting such formats would
either force the test to actually be executed in the setup stage (which
might be ok, as long as the API was explicitly phrased to support that), or
would mean we are forced into supporting subtests as return values from the
execute phase.
Any format can just keep all of its code in execute, presumably, so the only
cost of implementing this is its impact on the API and futures changes.
Miscellaneous
=============
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment