davide added a comment.
Can you add a unittest for this? :)
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43059
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 2018, at 6:40 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
> > and the command line in the log file doesn’t ever work for me'
>
> That's a bug. Can you show me an example where this breaks for you? I'd
> like to investigate this.
>
> -- adri
This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state "Needs
Review".
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL324564: [docs] Update docs for cmake options
LLDB_TEST_C_COMPILER and… (authored by asmith, committed by ).
Changed prior
> On Feb 7, 2018, at 6:40 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> and the command line in the log file doesn’t ever work for me'
That's a bug. Can you show me an example where this breaks for you? I'd like to
investigate this.
-- adrian
___
lldb-commits maili
Looks good. Stuff like this feel free to just commit
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:53 PM Aaron Smith via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> asmith created this revision.
> asmith added reviewers: zturner, lldb-commits.
> Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
>
> LLDB_TEST_COMPILER is n
asmith updated this revision to Diff 133362.
asmith edited the summary of this revision.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42994
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/breakpoint/global_constructor/Makefile
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/breakpoint/move_nearest/Makefi
asmith created this revision.
asmith added reviewers: zturner, lldb-commits.
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
LLDB_TEST_COMPILER is not a valid option for CMake for LLDB. There are instead
two properties LLDB_TEST_C_COMPILER and LLDB_TEST_CXX_COMPILER. Update the
documents accordingly to
Author: eugene
Date: Wed Feb 7 19:05:47 2018
New Revision: 324558
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=324558&view=rev
Log:
Deactivate TestTargetSymbolsBuildidCase if host is windows
Makefile has unix magic and thus not working on windows.
Modified:
lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbs
asmith created this revision.
asmith added reviewers: zturner, lldb-commits.
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43059
Files:
source/Plugins/Language/CPlusPlus/CPlusPlusLanguage.cpp
Index: source/Plugins/Language/CPlusPlus/CPlusPlusLanguag
asmith updated this revision to Diff 133354.
asmith edited the summary of this revision.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42994
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/breakpoint/global_constructor/Makefile
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/breakpoint/move_nearest/Makefi
Yes but debugging across several api calls is annoying, and the command
line in the log file doesn’t ever work for me
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:07 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> jingham added a comment.
>
> If a dotest test fails, you go to the Failure-whatever.l
jingham added a comment.
If a dotest test fails, you go to the Failure-whatever.log, take the last line,
add a -d to it, and run it. It suspends itself, then you attach to the Python
instance with the debugger.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048
___
Also, failures that are easy to reproduce are easy to debug. When a test
fails this way, you get a command line that can reproduce the problem that
can be debugged directly without having to debug across the python
boundary. I find that very helpful personally
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:48 PM Zachary
Same reason that people use perl for heavy text processing, R for
scientific programming, python for rapid iteration. It’s what they’re built
for. When something is built for a very focused specific problem domain,
the problems in that domain can be expressed very concisely and naturally.
In the c
jingham requested changes to this revision.
jingham added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
You do care about the common match string. When the lldb driver handles
completion, if the common match string is not null, we append that to the line
at the cursor position, then
zturner added a comment.
On the issue of keeping the other test, I think when an SB API method is
basically a pass-through to a private method, then having a test of the SB API
method that verifies "did the correct native method get called" is useful if
for no other reason than to verify the co
zturner added a comment.
Number of matches might be sufficient, but it might be nice to know if the
ordering of matches changes for some reason. Unless there's a specific reason
we want to allow an unstable order, enforcing a stable order seems desirable
just on principle.
https://reviews.ll
davide added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1001311, @davide wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1001283, @zturner wrote:
>
> > By the way, I'd suggest printing indices in front of each match and
> > including those in the FileCheck tests. Otherwise we could miss
> > com
davide added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1001283, @zturner wrote:
> By the way, I'd suggest printing indices in front of each match and including
> those in the FileCheck tests. Otherwise we could miss completions that sneak
> in.
Instead, or in addition, we might dump the
davide added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1001293, @davide wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1001287, @jingham wrote:
>
> > The current auto-completer tests aren't interactive - they do exactly the
> > same thing your command does, but from Python. It's fine if you wa
davide added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1001287, @jingham wrote:
> The current auto-completer tests aren't interactive - they do exactly the
> same thing your command does, but from Python. It's fine if you want to add
> tests but please don't remove the current tests since
jingham added a comment.
The current auto-completer tests aren't interactive - they do exactly the same
thing your command does, but from Python. It's fine if you want to add tests
but please don't remove the current tests since they directly test what the SB
clients use.
This will only allow
zturner added a comment.
By the way, I'd suggest printing indices in front of each match and including
those in the FileCheck tests. Otherwise we could miss completions that sneak
in.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048
___
lldb-commits mailing list
zturner added a comment.
In the future, we could add options to the `autocomplete` subcommand that would
allow specification of a target, and things like cursor position to maximize
testability.
In general though, I like the approach. It's not hard to imagine 50+ tests
being written just for
davide added a comment.
You can take a look at the
`test/testcases/functionalities/completion/TestCompletion.py` for the python
equivalent. I find the potential FileCheck'ed version much easier to
read/write/understand.
I'm possibly biased having worked many years on LLVM, hence I'm asking for
vsk added a comment.
The general direction lgtm, I'd be happy if we could replace interactive
autocomplete tests with this.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mail
davide created this revision.
davide added reviewers: aprantl, vsk, friss, labath, zturner, jingham,
jasonmolenda.
This is an experiment to improve out lldb testing capabilities and making them
more similar to the one used in LLVM.
Example:
davide@Davidinos-Mac-Pro ~/w/l/b/bin> ./lldb-test a
JDevlieghere closed this revision.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
Jup. Sorry for making it so confusing. Because Pavel's reply was here it seemed
sensible to update the diff.
Landed in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL324492
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43024
_
asmith added a comment.
Thanks! Have updated the commit message to clarify.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42990
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
Author: jingham
Date: Wed Feb 7 12:09:13 2018
New Revision: 324509
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=324509&view=rev
Log:
Remove an errant ^S
(still can't get over those Emacs habits...)
Modified:
lldb/trunk/scripts/interface/SBThread.i
Modified: lldb/trunk/scripts/interface/SB
vsk reopened this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Ah, I see the first part landed in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL324488 and this
is a follow-up.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43024
___
lldb-commits mailing
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This lgtm Jonas, thank you!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43024
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
Author: jdevlieghere
Date: Wed Feb 7 09:34:46 2018
New Revision: 324492
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=324492&view=rev
Log:
[test] Don't drop existing categories for methods.
The change in r324488 dropped the existing category attribute in for
instance methods. This patch corrects
owenpshaw added a comment.
Looks good to me
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42959
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
JDevlieghere updated this revision to Diff 133220.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
The change in r324488 dropped the existing category attribute in for
instance methods. This patch corrects that.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43024
Files:
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/decorators.py
Index: l
labath added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/decorators.py:307-308
"@add_test_categories can only be used to decorate a test
method")
if hasattr(func, "categories"):
cat.extend(func.categories)
+# Fo
JDevlieghere closed this revision.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
Forgot to add the differential to the commit message. Landed in
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL324488
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43024
___
lldb-commits mailing list
Author: jdevlieghere
Date: Wed Feb 7 08:10:59 2018
New Revision: 324488
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=324488&view=rev
Log:
[test] Enable setting category for inline tests.
Inlined tests have a test function that is actually an instance method,
which requires a slightly different a
davide accepted this revision.
davide added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
thanks for fixing this.
Comment at: lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/decorators.py:526
return None
-
+
header = os.path.join(
---
JDevlieghere created this revision.
JDevlieghere added reviewers: vsk, davide, labath.
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Inlined tests have a test function that is actually an instance method,
which requires a slightly different approach when it comes to setting
the category attribute. The
Author: labath
Date: Wed Feb 7 03:13:21 2018
New Revision: 324472
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=324472&view=rev
Log:
Remove function DW_DSC_value_to_name
It is unused, and the underlying llvm function has been removed as well.
Modified:
lldb/trunk/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DW
labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42994#999891, @zturner wrote:
> In the future when you upload diffs can you include context? (i.e. `git diff
> -U99`). It's nice to be able to see the surrounding code when I'm
> looking at a diff.
>
> Is there ever a case where you wou
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
looks good.
Technically, this is a property of the cmake generator (VS projects), and not
the host system (windows), but I get what you mean..
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org
43 matches
Mail list logo
