[Bug 30295] New: test infra: consider storing and re-using test inferior build artifacts for a given test directory

Bug ID 30295
Summary test infra: consider storing and re-using test inferior build artifacts for a given test directory
Product lldb
Version unspecified
Hardware PC
OS All
Status NEW
Severity normal
Priority P
Component All Bugs
Assignee lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
Reporter todd.fiala@gmail.com
CC llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
Classification Unclassified

As brought up in llvm.org/pr30271

Pavel had the idea of re-using build artifacts across test methods and test
files in a given test directory.  This likely would increase the speed with
which we could run the test suite as it eliminates the need to rebuild test
inferiors for any test that includes more than one test method.

My further comments from pr30271:


> We could achieve a big speedup by just not re-building the binaries over and over again.

I could see that being a really big win.

We'd have to parameterize the memoization of the built artifacts by anything
that could change.  These would include:
* make command line
* environment variables

I think that already covers the compilers, as they would be specified by CC/CXX
env vars or command line parameters to make.

We'd need a concept of the build artifacts for a given set of build settings.

We could conceivably allow these to be stored in a specified directory, which
could allow builders to preserve them across clean builds of the lldb product
if we so desired.  (We might not want that, so that a clean build is really a
clean build of the test artifacts as well).  We could figure out that later.

I think this is a very worthwhile item to investigate.

I don't know if/how this impacts what we would do if we used lit to run our
tests.  (As I mentioned on a different thread, I have not yet put any effort
into looking at what our test suite would look like running existing tests in
that test runner.  We currently have a number of assumptions about how our
build process interacts with test method runs that may or may not fit into the
lit expectations as they currently stand.  Zach mentioned we could write some
kind of test runner that plugs into lit, which maybe can handle these details. 
In that case, the effort for your suggestion could be easily lifted and used in
both scenarios, and therefore wouldn't be a waste of effort if we switched test