tfiala added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13124#254935, @tfiala wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13124#254900, @zturner wrote: > > > Sorry, our desks were reconfigured over the weekend, so I just now got my > > computer turned on. I'm syncing code and hopefully will have a working > > build soon. > > > Sounds good. I expect you'll find a few things you'll want to add/adjust. > If you get those patches to me, I'll include them in the check-in. Also note the test code for this check-in assumes there is a python in the path when it builds the command to run the inferior test subject. (This is the thing we run against to verify that the ProcessDriver --- aka child process runner with timeout support --- gets return codes, witnesses timeouts, witnesses children processes that choose to ignore soft terminate signals and gets the bad guy with a more lethal (hard) termination option, etc.). You might need to tweak that in the test runner. That python invocation doesn't require any special lldb support - it is just testing that a process can be launched, and that process happens to be a python interpreter session running the inferior.py test subject. So I figured that was probably fine as is. http://reviews.llvm.org/D13124 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
