Also, w.r.t: > Aside from write imperative control flow constructs, which I see as a > positive rather than a negative.
I wrote a bunch of tests to test that stepping behavior for swift and C was reasonable. When stepping through source code, there is not one correct way to write the line tables, and in fact clang & swiftc change how they describe the source through the line tables all the time. So you have to do: I stepped, and sometimes I'll get to A, sometimes to B, both are "right" but I have to do different things in either case. If A, step again before the next test, if B go to the next test. You could "fix" that by only doing one step per test, and taking each of these as a success. But then you wouldn't test that series of steps don't accumulate errors, you'd only test "run to a breakpoint and step once." That would not be good. So your positive would be very much a negative for this kind of test. Traditionally the answer to this has been: we know we have to keep the current testsuite around but we're just adding other new different ways to write tests. Now you are saying something very different. Do you really mean that? Jim _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
