mirror of
https://github.com/c64scene-ar/llvm-6502.git
synced 2024-12-27 13:30:05 +00:00
[lit] Add a TODO.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@189546 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This commit is contained in:
parent
501cba385c
commit
6f25e872e4
@ -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
|
||||
=============
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user