labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46588#1093267, @aprantl wrote:
> Can you give an example of what you mean by "specifying the lldb-mi commands
> up-front"? it's not immediately obvious to me how that would look like.
In your example `lldb-mi-demo.input` is static text, right? No command depends
on the result of any previous commands. That's what I mean by "up-front".
The opposite of that would be if you used the output of one command to
construct the next one. Something like:
result = execute("first command")
value = extract_something_interesting(result)
result2 = execute(create_second_command(value))
My point is that lit+FileCheck is good if all your tests look like your
example, but it's not if you need to do something like the above. I haven't
looked at lldb-mi in much detail, so I can't which of these two options is
correct, although it seems that at least the majority of the tests could be
written that way.
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
