zturner added a comment.
Actually nevermind, the changed file list was cut off by the email, so I didn't
see that it had been modified. It looks like you just didn't copy over the
`@skipIfWindows` decorator. I can fix that easily, sorry for the noise.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.ll
Hi Tamas,
This breaks TestBuiltinTrap on Windows. Do you have any insight about why
this might be happening? That test is not modified at all by this patch
from what I can tell, but a bisect pinpoints this CL as the reason for the
failure.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 1:05 AM Ed Maste wrote:
> emas
zturner added a comment.
Hi Tamas,
This breaks TestBuiltinTrap on Windows. Do you have any insight about why
this might be happening? That test is not modified at all by this patch
from what I can tell, but a bisect pinpoints this CL as the reason for the
failure.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http:
emaste added a comment.
> I'm leaving shortly to travel to EuroBSDCon so probably will not be able to
> test before Wednesday, but I can investigate and update decorators as
> appropriate afterwards.
A follow up - the tests look good on FreeBSD after this change. On my branch
with a few updat
emaste added a comment.
No objection from me on the FreeBSD side. I'm leaving shortly to travel to
EuroBSDCon so probably will not be able to test before Wednesday, but I can
investigate and update decorators as appropriate afterwards.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13028
tfiala accepted this revision.
tfiala added a comment.
LGTM as well. Thanks!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13028
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
tberghammer added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13028#250822, @clayborg wrote:
> Looks good. For the failing test cases, just check this stuff in and we
> should take care or marking any needed tests and expected fail. Is there a
> way to mark a test such that the "dwarf in .o files" w
At some point I really would love to reduce the number of decorators. It's
starting to get ridiculous :)
Seems like we only need one decorator that takes everything as optional
arguments
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:42 AM Tamas Berghammer
wrote:
> tberghammer added a comment.
>
> In http://revie
zturner added a comment.
At some point I really would love to reduce the number of decorators. It's
starting to get ridiculous :)
Seems like we only need one decorator that takes everything as optional
arguments
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13028
___
clayborg accepted this revision.
clayborg added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Looks good. For the failing test cases, just check this stuff in and we should
take care or marking any needed tests and expected fail. Is there a way to mark
a test such that the "dwarf i
zturner added a comment.
I am at CppCon all week. If you need to get this in before Monday, can you
have Oleksiy or Chaoren test on Windows? Otherwise I can take a look next
week.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13028
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-c
I am at CppCon all week. If you need to get this in before Monday, can you
have Oleksiy or Chaoren test on Windows? Otherwise I can take a look next
week.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:51 AM Tamas Berghammer
wrote:
> tberghammer retitled this revision from "[RFC] Merge dsym and dwarf test
> cases"
12 matches
Mail list logo