rupprecht wrote: > I ran this on Arm and AArch64 Linux. One test > `lldb/test/API/functionalities/breakpoint/hardware_breakpoints/require_hw_breakpoints/TestRequireHWBreakpoints.py` > was xfailed on AArch64 is now not. Before: > > ``` > PASS: LLDB (/home/david.spickett/build-llvm-aarch64/bin/clang-aarch64) :: > test_breakpoint (TestRequireHWBreakpoints.BreakpointLocationsTestCase) > XFAIL: LLDB (/home/david.spickett/build-llvm-aarch64/bin/clang-aarch64) :: > test_step_out (TestRequireHWBreakpoints.BreakpointLocationsTestCase) > XFAIL: LLDB (/home/david.spickett/build-llvm-aarch64/bin/clang-aarch64) :: > test_step_over (TestRequireHWBreakpoints.BreakpointLocationsTestCase) > XFAIL: LLDB (/home/david.spickett/build-llvm-aarch64/bin/clang-aarch64) :: > test_step_range (TestRequireHWBreakpoints.BreakpointLocationsTestCase) > XFAIL: LLDB (/home/david.spickett/build-llvm-aarch64/bin/clang-aarch64) :: > test_step_until (TestRequireHWBreakpoints.BreakpointLocationsTestCase) > ``` > > After: > > ``` > PASS: LLDB (/home/david.spickett/build-llvm-aarch64/bin/clang-aarch64) :: > test_breakpoint (TestRequireHWBreakpoints.BreakpointLocationsTestCase) > FAIL: LLDB (/home/david.spickett/build-llvm-aarch64/bin/clang-aarch64) :: > test_step_out (TestRequireHWBreakpoints.BreakpointLocationsTestCase) > FAIL: LLDB (/home/david.spickett/build-llvm-aarch64/bin/clang-aarch64) :: > test_step_over (TestRequireHWBreakpoints.BreakpointLocationsTestCase) > FAIL: LLDB (/home/david.spickett/build-llvm-aarch64/bin/clang-aarch64) :: > test_step_range (TestRequireHWBreakpoints.BreakpointLocationsTestCase) > FAIL: LLDB (/home/david.spickett/build-llvm-aarch64/bin/clang-aarch64) :: > test_step_until (TestRequireHWBreakpoints.BreakpointLocationsTestCase) > ``` > > To be honest, the way the XFAIL is written is very strange. We wrap a > `skipIf` around `supports_hw_breakpoints` then we `expectedFailureIfFn` on > that. Which sounds like we expect failure if we support hardware breakpoints, > but that can't be how that works. > > Also, I think the XFAIL was added for Arm (32 bit) > ([30308d1](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/30308d1eb966afa35ee2fd5c5b47b17eb0382896)) > and did not intend to include AArch64. Whatever the intent was, this now > fails on AArch64 so it should be both. > > I will see if I can just rewrite the xfail here, because we're definitely > doing something weird at the moment.
Argh, thanks very much for running those tests -- I had noticed that issue before, but forgot about it when mailing this. The issue is that `expectedFailureIfFn` inherently doesn't work anymore. I need to remove that usage first. Thankfully it's only used in three test case files. Versions of both `unittest` and `unittest2` from trunk expect that any xfail annotations are applied at test class instantiation (or something; a Python compiler expert can correct me). But our local copy of `unittest2` is forked from an older version which allows the xfail annotation to apply at test runtime. So anything that relies on lazily deciding if a test case should be xfail will not work when unittest tries to eagerly check if something is xfail. `expectedFailureIfFn` is a decorator that wraps the test case and only calls the fn when the test has just finished setup and is about to start the actual test case. More details w/ commit & bug links in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73067#issuecomment-1828761806. Anyway, I'll see about landing that first, and hopefully it doesn't interfere w/ this PR much. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79945 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
