6f576d957e
These changes slighly modify the output of the unittests so that they better
match GTest, so that utilities that parse the expected output from GTest (such
as Android's unit test harness) can read the output from our unit tests.
This allows our unit tests to be run on Android devices.
Add very primitive command line parsing to:
- support --gtest_color=no to disable printing terminal colors.
- recognize --gtest_print_time and print the test time in milliseconds.
- most of our unit tests run on the order of microseconds, so its useful to
preserve the existing behavior. But upsteram GTest ONLY prints time tests
in milliseconds, and Android's atest expects to be able to parse exactly
that. Atest always passes --gtest_print_time. The word `took` is removed as
that also differs from upstream GTest, tripping up parsers.
- ignore other --gtest_* flags
Do so so that atest can parse the output correctly.
Print the test number count before
each run, so that atest can parse this value correctly.
Link: https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/external/llvm-libc/+/3107252
Link: https://google.github.io/googletest/advanced.html#colored-terminal-output
Link: https://google.github.io/googletest/advanced.html#suppressing-the-elapsed-time
The LLVM libc unit test framework
This directory contains a lightweight implementation of a gtest like unit test framework for LLVM libc.
Why not gtest?
While gtest is great, featureful and time tested, it uses the C and C++ standard libraries. Hence, using it to test LLVM libc (which is also an implementation of the C standard libraries) causes various kinds of mixup/conflict problems.
How is it different from gtest?
LLVM libc's unit test framework is much less featureful as compared to gtest. But, what is available strives to be exactly like gtest.
Will it be made as featureful as gtest in future?
It is not clear if LLVM libc needs/will need every feature of gtest. We only intend to extend it on an as needed basis. Hence, it might never be as featureful as gtest.