Prabhuk wrote: > Two things. First off, adding the -I 0 option did indeed fix a failure. > > In the first run you cited, three tests failed: > > FAIL: LLDB (/b/s/w/ir/x/w/cipd/clang/bin/clang-x86_64) :: > test_stop_hooks_scripted_auto_continue > (TestStopHookScripted.TestStopHooks.test_stop_hooks_scripted_auto_continue) > FAIL: LLDB (/b/s/w/ir/x/w/cipd/clang/bin/clang-x86_64) :: > test_stop_hooks_scripted_right_func > (TestStopHookScripted.TestStopHooks.test_stop_hooks_scripted_right_func) > FAIL: LLDB (/b/s/w/ir/x/w/cipd/clang/bin/clang-x86_64) :: > test_stop_hooks_scripted_wrong_func > (TestStopHookScripted.TestStopHooks.test_stop_hooks_scripted_wrong_func) > > But then in the second log from after you applied the patch I suggested, only > the last two tests failed. So the addition did in fact make the first test > pass. > > That makes sense because those other two failing tests don't use the same > command string as the first one. They use the command string on line 148 in > the test. So you also need to add the -I 0 to the command line in > `stop_hooks_scripted` in the test file. > > But still, those failures are odd. The only difference between these two > failing tests and two that pass: > > PASS: LLDB (/b/s/w/ir/x/w/cipd/clang/bin/clang-x86_64) :: > test_stop_hooks_scripted_right_lines > (TestStopHookScripted.TestStopHooks.test_stop_hooks_scripted_right_lines) > PASS: LLDB (/b/s/w/ir/x/w/cipd/clang/bin/clang-x86_64) :: > test_stop_hooks_scripted_wrong_lines > (TestStopHookScripted.TestStopHooks.test_stop_hooks_scripted_wrong_lines) > > are that the failing tests pass in a function name filter to determine when > the stop-hook should fire, and the passing tests pass in a line-range filter. > In both failures the symptom is that the stop-hook got to fire one more time > than expected. The only change in this patch was adding one more place where > the stop-hook might fire - "at the entry point", but in the case of these > tests, that "entry point" firing shouldn't matter because the "entry point" > stop won't pass the filter. Somehow, in your case, that's not true. > > Given that it did make the first test pass, I'm guessing adding the `-I 0` to > the other `target stop-hook add` command in the test file will make those > tests pass as well. > > But where was that "entry point" stop happening on your system such that both > file and line number filters correctly reject it, but it passes BOTH the > filter on function name `main` AND the filter on function name > `step_out_of_me`?
Thank you. I added a PR with suggested changes that address the test failure https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143048 I do not have the larger context to understand the test failures. I can bring this up with my team and get back to you with what we find out. Thank you for helping out here. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137410 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
