sgraenitz added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52270#1239685, @aprantl wrote:
> What do you think about fixing that before landing this patch? Then we don't
> need to work around it.
Hm, we didn't finally decide for the fix and I don't want to raise the pressure
on it artificially.
I think it will anyway reveal more places, where we forgot about this little
detail and thus provide opportunity to improve also this test.
Of course, this also means that I can keep matching the specific string for
this (hopefully short) foreseeable future.
================
Comment at: lit/Expr/TestMultilineExpr.test:9
+# CHECK: (lldb) expression
+# CHECK-NEXT: Enter expressions, then terminate with an empty line to evaluate:
+# CHECK-NEXT: (int) {{.*}} = 5
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> sgraenitz wrote:
> > Maybe it's nitpicking, but I'd actually prefer not to match this specific
> > string. It could be any human-readable instruction. However, if I replace
> > it with `{{.*}}` lit will complain that the match doesn't start on the next
> > line:
> > ```
> > TestMultilineExpr.test:9:15: error: CHECK-NEXT: is on the same line as
> > previous match
> > # CHECK-NEXT: {{.*}}
> > ^
> > <stdin>:9:18: note: 'next' match was here
> > (lldb) expression
> > ^
> > <stdin>:9:18: note: previous match ended here
> > (lldb) expression
> > ^
> > ```
> >
> > Any ideas how to get it right?
> why not:
> ```
> # CHECK: (lldb) expression
> # CHECK: (int) {{.*}} = 5
> ```
> ?
I think we can keep it like this for now.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52270
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
