Can you rebase against ToT? I'm having trouble applying the patch. On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:00 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
