- User Since
- Jan 21 2014, 12:56 PM (377 w, 1 d)
Mon, Apr 12
Skipping test when running on old OS.
Replace usage of magic constants with actual API.
LGTM. Do we have a test that fails without this, but succeeds with it (on AS)?
I am just asking to understand if we missed this because we aren't testing on AS or because it only triggers in rare corner cases.
Fri, Apr 9
From the TargetConditionals.h header:
TARGET_OS_MAC - Generated code will run under Mac OS X variant TARGET_OS_OSX - Generated code will run under OS X devices TARGET_OS_IPHONE - Generated code for firmware, devices, or simulator TARGET_OS_IOS - Generated code will run under iOS TARGET_OS_TV - Generated code will run under Apple TV OS TARGET_OS_WATCH - Generated code will run under Apple Watch OS TARGET_OS_MACCATALYST - Generated code will run under macOS TARGET_OS_SIMULATOR - Generated code will run under a simulator
Tue, Apr 6
I am happy with the mechanics and quality of the patch. Ideally @dvyukov could give a final sign-off.
Mon, Apr 5
Fri, Apr 2
Thu, Apr 1
Your overall explanation of the issue and the solution presented here makes sense to me, but I don't have a good enough understanding to know if this is the best approach.
Tue, Mar 30
Wed, Mar 24
Tue, Mar 23
@delcypher Good to go now?
Restoring interface changes. Removing const from interface delcartions (clang-tidy).
Ahh, I accidentally overwrote your very last diff. Will fix. Also thanks so much, Vitaly!
- 'const' type qualifier on return type has no effect [clang-diagnostic-ignored-qualifiers]
- 'auto ptr' can be declared as 'auto *ptr' [llvm-qualified-auto]
Also added a test. It only explicitly tests the "hooks present" case since all other tests already cover the "hooks absent" case.
- Introduce new hooks and call old ones
Adopt already-existing tsan::OnInitialize().
Mon, Mar 22
Very cool, thanks! :)
Thu, Mar 18
Wed, Mar 17
Tue, Mar 16
Mar 15 2021
Mar 9 2021
Very happy with the patch! Thanks for all your hard work! :)
I have a few small nits and one ask: can we model "test failed" explicitly instead of making their execution time really large?
Mar 5 2021
I don't think we need a RFC for this as long as nothing changes for people who don't use the early_tests or new, generalized ordering feature. We shouldn't make Dave pay for past debts. (early_tests was introduced 5 years ago!)
Feb 26 2021
LGTM with nits!
Feb 24 2021
I also want to state that I am a bit concerned about feature creep and the the general usefulness of this effort.
There is no way to specify the number of workers when invoking lit indirectly ...
Feb 23 2021
LGTM, cleanup only, right?
Feb 19 2021
LGTM, thanks! :)
The diff still looks incomplete.
I am also happy with --filter-out.
Feb 18 2021
I think the current diff does not contain all parts of this change.
--skip: is it okay if we rename this to --filter-not? It's an uglier name but
- more "self explanatory", i..e, "opposite of --filter". Anyone who knows --filter will know what it does just by looking the arg name.
- Discoverable: in the usage and help output, it will appear next to --filter.
- In the summary, we have a category of Skipped tests: tests that were not run because the user hit [Ctrl+C] or because of overall timeout. --skipped tests would appear in the Excluded category (e.g., --filter and sharding feature). Not using the word skip may help prevent some confusion.
Can we also add the summary counts in the test, so that the test shows that --filter-not excluded tests are counted in the Excluded category? Thanks!
Otherwise, LGTM, will approve today if you split this part out.
Feb 16 2021
I can get behind --skip (patch LGTM), but would a little help to understand when --xfail=path/to/test1;path/to/test2 would be useful (which workflow?). Thanks!
Feb 11 2021
Feb 9 2021
Feb 8 2021
@kubamracek pointed out that the optimization level in these tests might be of significance: ensuring that things work correctly with optimizations enabled.
Feb 5 2021
Feb 3 2021
LGTM assuming we did some manual QA/testing. (Adding a test is probably too hard to be worth it.)
Jan 29 2021
My apologies for misrepresenting the meaning of the docs and stirring up this confusion. I did not read the docs carefully enough.
Jan 28 2021
LGTM, thanks! (I got bitten by this.)
Jan 27 2021
Jan 26 2021
Jan 25 2021
Reverting until we can fix the bot (since it's low priority).
Actually, it seems to me that --no-indirect-run-check probably should have been a lit config option in the first place. It declares a property of the test suite: it has legitimate tests that are only run individually. lit invocations shouldn't have to declare that again and again. Or have I misunderstood the use case?
No that makes sense. A config option would work for me. Should I make a new patch to that effect then?
Ignoring backward-compatibility, would the command-line option then be unnecessary? Whether we remove it immediately is a different question.
Before you invest time in this, it might be good to hear from someone else. @yln, does this solution seem reasonable to you?
Jan 22 2021
Address Joel's comments.
Jan 21 2021
Jan 15 2021
Jan 14 2021
Does the following mean that Python3 is now okay to use for lit?