llvm dev - Nov 2013 - [LLVMdev] Any objections to my importing GoogleMock to go with GoogleTest in LLVM?

Keep in mind that I am a maintainer for gmock so this would not change the
external project decencies of LLVM.
On Nov 12, 2013 9:16 PM, "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
google.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it
will
> allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier
> to maintain. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan of some features in
> GoogleMock, but on the whole, I think it's better than the alternative
and
> will allow more careful testing of C++ APIs where the interesting part is
> the API itself.
>
> Personally, I rather not do this, without very clear and compelling
> reasons.
>
> I understand that this could be very useful for your bringup (and so could
> be very useful locally), but once the passmanager is the default, it will
> get lost of in-tree testing by just about everything in the compiler.
>
> I'm not really excited about dragging another out of tree project in
> unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
>
> -Chris
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131112/5ff04739/attachment.html>

On 13 Nov 2013, at 06:21, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
> Keep in mind that I am a maintainer for gmock so this would not change the
external project decencies of LLVM.
Is gmock written with more portability in mind than gtest?  In my experience,
bringing up a new platform for gtest is a huge amount of pain (unless the code
has been improved recently - I last tried it about 18 months ago), because the
code has very poor abstractions and an incomprehensible nest of #ifdefs for any
platform-specific code, mostly testing the wrong thing.  Being unable to get the
test suite to run was the blocker for even starting to port some of the
sanitizers that used gtest last time I tried.

David

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:54 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at
cl.cam.ac.uk
> wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2013, at 06:21, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
>
> > Keep in mind that I am a maintainer for gmock so this would not change
> the external project decencies of LLVM.
>
> Is gmock written with more portability in mind than gtest?  In my
> experience, bringing up a new platform for gtest is a huge amount of pain
> (unless the code has been improved recently - I last tried it about 18
> months ago), because the code has very poor abstractions and an
> incomprehensible nest of #ifdefs for any platform-specific code, mostly
> testing the wrong thing.  Being unable to get the test suite to run was the
> blocker for even starting to port some of the sanitizers that used gtest
> last time I tried.
>
I don't know about what problems you hit, but I would not expect them with
gmock. It is in many ways simpler than gtest, and most notably relies on
gtest for essentially all of its interesting platform dependencies. Of
course, I can't be certain, but this isn't what would worry me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131114/49fb6cde/attachment.html>