llvm dev - Sep 2019 - Changing behavior of lit.py's -v flag

Hi,

I think lit.py’s current behavior is somewhat unintuitive in the presence of -v
(and not
using -vv), so I’m proposing that it be changed.

Current behavior:
-v: Prints all the substituted lines, not clear which line failed :(
-vv: Prints all the lines up to and including the line that failed :)

Option 1:
-v: Prints only the failing line :)
-vv: Same as today. :)
-vvv (new): Prints all the substituted lines, highlighting* the line that failed
:)

Option 2 (less deviation from status quo):
-v: Adopts behavior of -vvv from Option 1. :)
-vv: Same as today. :)

See also: https://twitter.com/brentdax/status/1154955239620956160
<https://twitter.com/brentdax/status/1154955239620956160> (note: my
opinion has
changed slightly since my comment there)

Varun

* highlighting — could be bold and/or underlined or something else. Based on
some simple
testing on a Mac terminal, this doesn’t break copy-pasting even if you’re using
the default
formatting-aware copy-paste.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190911/8c69c6e4/attachment-0001.html>

Hi Varun,

I'm definitely in favour of making -v more useful like this.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 19:31, Varun Gandhi via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Option 2 (less deviation from status quo):
> -v: Adopts behavior of -vvv from Option 1. :)
> -vv: Same as today. :)
I think I prefer this one. There's a significant minority of tests
where a the single failing line isn't enough to work out what's
actually happened, if the FileCheck is a separate RUN for example.
Under this scheme no-one even needs to know -vv exists (which is good,
because I've been working with LLVM for many years and didn't until
this thread).

Cheers.

Tim.

Tim Northover via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> Hi Varun,
>
> I'm definitely in favour of making -v more useful like this.
>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 19:31, Varun Gandhi via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Option 2 (less deviation from status quo):
>> -v: Adopts behavior of -vvv from Option 1. :)
>> -vv: Same as today. :)
>
> I think I prefer this one. There's a significant minority of tests
> where a the single failing line isn't enough to work out what's
> actually happened, if the FileCheck is a separate RUN for example.
> Under this scheme no-one even needs to know -vv exists (which is good,
> because I've been working with LLVM for many years and didn't until
> this thread).
+1.

                      -David