On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote: > I'm a little confused by your response. > > My stated objection to command output dependent tests is and has always been > that they make the test dependent on the details of command output. Over > time doing so makes it hard to modify command output. This is sort of > related to interactivity, in the sense that since lldb is an interactive tool > with lots of different commands producing different reports of information we > can gather, the desire to improve and modify that output is more present than > in tools that are less output dependent or whose output is meant to be > processed, in which case it really is API. Command output for lldb is > explicitly NOT API, that's why we have a real API for people who want to > program lldb... So the bad effect of the tests in calcifying this output is > an issue for lldb where it may not be for other tools. >
Hi Jim, in my experience command output changes can be automated via `sed/grep/awk`. I'm responsible (and many others are) for fundamental changes in LLVM tools output (i.e. typeless pointers changed pretty much every load/store/memory_op* in tree) and I found out changing the output of tests isn't that troublesome. I'm not yet very familiar with LLDB, so the story might be different here. I'm personally in favour of this approach because it scaled very well in llvm (and lld, FWIW), with many more tests than lldb has. -- Davide _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
