aprantl added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lit/tools/lldb-mi/breakpoint/break-insert.test:14 +# CHECK-AFTER: ^running +# CHECK-AFTER: *stopped,reason="breakpoint-hit" + ---------------- polyakov.alex wrote: > aprantl wrote: > > CHECK-AFTER is not recognized by FileCheck: > > > > https://www.llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html > > > > You probably saw this in a testcase that ran FileCheck twice, one time with > > the CHECK prefix and once with a custom `--check-prefix=CHECK-AFTER` which > > is a common trick to have more than one set of FileCheck directives in a > > single file. > Yes. There is no problem to write test using only `CHECK` and `CHECK-NOT`, > but as I said, in lldb-mi's output we can't find any info about hitting > breakpoint, so the question is: is it enough to check that breakpoint was set > to a selected target? > in lldb-mi's output we can't find any info about hitting breakpoint, Is that how the gdb/mi protocol is supposed to work or is that a bug or missing feature in lldb-mi? > so the question is: is it enough to check that breakpoint was set to a > selected target? If that's just how the protocol works then we'll have to make do with what we got. 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
