tfiala added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12651#241810, @zturner wrote:
> Can you confirm with 2 runs before and 2 runs after the patch that you see > the same results every time? > > Todd, can you think of a reason why this might happen? Hmm, I vaguely recall finding what looked like a bug in the pre-change code where we might have been losing a count on something, so we might be counting something we previously didn't. But I went through so much code on this in the last 72 hours that I might be misremembering now. What I can say is that if we're miscounting something (possibly newly so), it shouldn't be too hard to find and fix when we list everything. (i.e. if we're counting something, we should be able to say what it was that was counted, and if there's something being misrepresented, that should be relatively easy to track down). > worth holding the patch up too long over this because I want to see the > other improvements come through, but if you can think of an obvious cause > for this Todd (or if you feel like looking into it before I get back > tomorrow Adrian) we could probably fix it before it goes in. Either In any > case, I'm willing to let it go in this way and fix it tomorrow if necessary. That would be great. Let me know when you're comfortable with it going in, Zachary. And thanks for trying it, Adrian! > Diffing the list of failed suites at the end of the output shows only one > difference: TestCPPBreakpoints.py is listed twice after the patch. We should be able to hunt that down. What is your command line? http://reviews.llvm.org/D12651 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
