This is to simplify an upcoming change where we distinguish between
flavors of libc++ by adding an apple-libc++ Lit feature.
Details
- Reviewers
ldionne - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rGf800560ff1cb: [libc++] Rename the 'libc++' Lit feature to 'llvm-libc++'
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
- Build Status
Buildable 126663 Build 184006: arc lint + arc unit
Event Timeline
libcxx/test/std/utilities/function.objects/func.search/func.search.bmh/hash.pred.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
10 ↗ | (On Diff #376313) | Off-topic, but what on earth? Why does libc++'s test suite have test cases that are XFAILed on libc++? |
libcxx/utils/libcxx/test/params.py | ||
105 | I don't really know the use-case here, but maybe consider whether you want to
|
libcxx/test/std/utilities/function.objects/func.search/func.search.bmh/hash.pred.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
10 ↗ | (On Diff #376313) | It's a common misconception that this is only "libc++"'s test suite. The intent is for it to be a general C++ Standard Library conformance test suite, and for it to be usable by any implementation of the C++ Standard Library. Libc++ is merely one of those implementations, and arguably the one that makes the most use of the test suite. But in reality, libstdc++ and msvc do use our test suite from time to time, too. |
libcxx/utils/libcxx/test/params.py | ||
105 |
Yeah, I considered a few names but: upstream-libc++ makes it look like there's a "downstream" libc++ (as in a fork of libc++), which is not the case. It's more that it's configured differently. trunk-libc++ introduces a notion of being at the top of HEAD, which isn't really what I want to convey. I think it makes sense to talk about LLVM libc++ as opposed to <vendor> libc++, kind of how we distinguish LLVM Clang and Apple Clang. In a way, LLVM can be seen as a "vendor" for the toolchain that is released on llvm.org.
I thought about that too but then refrained from doing it because I thought to myself "we added support for regular expressions just for that, why not use it?". Maybe that was the wrong call. I'll add a top-level feature as you suggest. |
I don't really know the use-case here, but maybe consider whether you want to