aprantl added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46588#1092884, @labath wrote:
> Out of curiosity, are there any plans to improve the lldb-mi test reliability > situation? As it stands now, most of the lldb-mi tests are disabled one way > or another due to them being flaky. Thanks for bringing that up. I just looked at a few lldb-mi testcases and they all seem to follow a pattern of `self.runCmd()` followed by `self.expect()`. That in itself doesn't look like a particularly bad design to me since it synchronizes commands and expected output tightly. Do we know why the tests are flakey? Do they get out of sync, or is there something else? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D46588 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
