Michael137 added a comment.

In D132004#3727682 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132004#3727682>, @aprantl wrote:

> This might be a bit aggressive. If it's easy we could add a `if clang > 14` 
> condition before those last two tests so we don't loose coverage?

Fair point, I moved the assertions to a new XFAIL test-case which is specific 
to `dsym Clang 14.0` variants


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D132004/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D132004

_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
  • [Lldb-commits]... Michael Buch via Phabricator via lldb-commits
    • [Lldb-com... Adrian Prantl via Phabricator via lldb-commits
    • [Lldb-com... Michael Buch via Phabricator via lldb-commits
    • [Lldb-com... Michael Buch via Phabricator via lldb-commits
    • [Lldb-com... Felipe de Azevedo Piovezan via Phabricator via lldb-commits
    • [Lldb-com... Michael Buch via Phabricator via lldb-commits
    • [Lldb-com... Michael Buch via Phabricator via lldb-commits
    • [Lldb-com... Felipe de Azevedo Piovezan via Phabricator via lldb-commits
    • [Lldb-com... Michael Buch via Phabricator via lldb-commits
    • [Lldb-com... Michael Buch via Phabricator via lldb-commits
    • [Lldb-com... Felipe de Azevedo Piovezan via Phabricator via lldb-commits

Reply via email to