dotest is also a potentially fallible layer on top of the SB Api call, but one that involves *more* behind-the-scenes code between the test and code being tested.
An lldb-test test would consist, in its entirety, of about 10 lines of text. I don’t see how it’s possible to beat that from a simplicity standpoint (and you get the added bonus that the thing running the test is known to not be flaky) On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:33 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > jingham added a comment. > > Yes. We do need to have symbols to do symbol completion, which does > require a binary, but you don't need to run it. Most of the other tests in > there (e.g. simple command completion) should be able to work without even > a binary. It seems weird to add a potentially fallible lldb-test layer on > top of SBCommandInterpreter.HandleCompletion just so you can send text > input through lldb-test rather than directly sending text input to > SBCommandInterpreter.HandleCommand. > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D42656 > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
