[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45170: Cleanup DWARFCompileUnit and DWARFUnit in preparation for adding DWARFTypeUnit

clayborg added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45170#1057067, @aprantl wrote: > I have only one general question and otherwise I'm fine with this: Does this > bring LLDB's DWARF parser closer to the structure of LLVM's? We still want to > long-term replace LLDB's DWARF parser with LLVM'

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45298: [debugserver] Fix LC_BUILD_VERSION load command handling.

friss created this revision. friss added reviewers: jasonmolenda, labath. In one of the 2 places the LC_BUILD_VERSION load command is handled, there is a bug preventing us from actually handling them (the address where to read the load command was not updated). This patch factors reading the deplo

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

zturner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45215#1057311, @labath wrote: > > Preferably lit would take care of as much as possible. I think Zachary’s > > idea makes sense as an incremental step. If we think of one python file as > > a google test executable, it makes sense to return

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

labath added a comment. > Preferably lit would take care of as much as possible. I think Zachary’s > idea makes sense as an incremental step. If we think of one python file as > a google test executable, it makes sense to return a list of test for every > python file for “v2”. I think running t

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

I have some ideas for how to run the different variants as separate tests, but I'll save it for the next RFC :) On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:24 AM Jonas Devlieghere wrote: > > > On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Apr 4, 2018, at 9:07 AM, Zachary Turner wrote: > >

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

> On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote: > > > >> On Apr 4, 2018, at 9:07 AM, Zachary Turner wrote: >> >> Sure, but getting lit to run one file at a time is a nice incremental step >> towards that and can make both patches easier to review. > > Agreed, I just want to make sure th

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45170: Cleanup DWARFCompileUnit and DWARFUnit in preparation for adding DWARFTypeUnit

aprantl added a comment. I have only one general question and otherwise I'm fine with this: Does this bring LLDB's DWARF parser closer to the structure of LLVM's? We still want to long-term replace LLDB's DWARF parser with LLVM's so every refactoring should aim at making their interfaces more s

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45170: Cleanup DWARFCompileUnit and DWARFUnit in preparation for adding DWARFTypeUnit

clayborg added a comment. ping https://reviews.llvm.org/D45170 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

> On Apr 4, 2018, at 9:07 AM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > Sure, but getting lit to run one file at a time is a nice incremental step > towards that and can make both patches easier to review. Agreed, I just want to make sure that we are all on the same page as to which direction we want to evo

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

Sure, but getting lit to run one file at a time is a nice incremental step towards that and can make both patches easier to review. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:02 AM Adrian Prantl wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2018, at 8:53 AM, Pavel Labath wrote: > > > > On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 at 16:47, Zachary Turner wrote:

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

> On Apr 4, 2018, at 8:53 AM, Pavel Labath wrote: > > > > On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 at 16:47, Zachary Turner > wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:11 AM Jonas Devlieghere via Phabricator > mailto:revi...@reviews.llvm.org>> wrote: > JDevlieghere added a comment. > > In

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 at 16:47, Zachary Turner wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:11 AM Jonas Devlieghere via Phabricator < > revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > >> JDevlieghere added a comment. >> >> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45215#1056917, @zturner wrote: >> >> > I haven’t had time to look at t

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:11 AM Jonas Devlieghere via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > JDevlieghere added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45215#1056917, @zturner wrote: > > > I haven’t had time to look at this in detail yet, but when I originally > had > > this idea I t

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

JDevlieghere added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45215#1056917, @zturner wrote: > I haven’t had time to look at this in detail yet, but when I originally had > this idea I thought we would use lit’s discovery mechanism to find all .py > files, and then invoke them using dotest.py in s

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

I haven’t had time to look at this in detail yet, but when I originally had this idea I thought we would use lit’s discovery mechanism to find all .py files, and then invoke them using dotest.py in single process mode with a path to a specific file. Why do we need run lines? On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

zturner added a subscriber: JDevlieghere. zturner added a comment. I haven’t had time to look at this in detail yet, but when I originally had this idea I thought we would use lit’s discovery mechanism to find all .py files, and then invoke them using dotest.py in single process mode with a path t

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45215#1056731, @JDevlieghere wrote: > Alright, I'm convinced this is the way to go. > > - For (1) I'll see if I can get some inspiration from the visit logic in > dotest.py. I guess the functionality is similar. I agree on doing this in a > s

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

JDevlieghere added a comment. Alright, I'm convinced this is the way to go. - For (1) I'll see if I can get some inspiration from the visit logic in dotest.py. I guess the functionality is similar. I agree on doing this in a separate tool, especially if we want to remove functionality from dote

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

labath added a reviewer: zturner. labath added a comment. Adding Zachary as he's familiar with lit internals. I'll try to elaborate more on the approach I had in mind. I would split my approach into a couple of tests. 1. Write a tool which will dump out the list of all tests in the test suite.

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45215#1056607, @JDevlieghere wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45215#1056043, @labath wrote: > > > I don't think this is going in a good direction TBH. > > > > You are building another layer on top of everything, whereas I think we > > sho

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

JDevlieghere added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45215#1056043, @labath wrote: > I don't think this is going in a good direction TBH. > > You are building another layer on top of everything, whereas I think we > should be cutting layers out. Besides the issues already pointed out (not