clayborg added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46588#1099536, @aprantl wrote:
> > If we're not able to come up with a command to make lldb-mi wait until the > > target stops (maybe there is one already? I know very little about > > lldb-mi), we may have to revisit the whole testing strategy... > > If one doesn't exist then I think it would be reasonable to invent one. > Handling an additional command that is used in testing only should not break > any existing clients. I am not sure I like the direction of "lets test lldb-mi in a way that doesn't behave like a real debug session" by making new testing stuff so we can text scrape. 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
