jingham requested changes to this revision. jingham added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed.
There are a whole bunch of other tests that test completion in this file that use the exact same mechanism but don't seem to be flakey. Why is this one test flakey? If for instance it's because "Fo" ends up being ambiguous because we chose too common a start string, then you could trivially fix the test by choosing a more uncommon name to complete on. But I'd want to know why this test is flakey first. I also don't see why you say this test doesn't test something important. The ability to auto-complete symbol names it pretty important to command-line lldb users. If anything we should have more tests of the symbol completer... https://reviews.llvm.org/D42656 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
