labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24629#550841, @fjricci wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24629#550823, @tfiala wrote:
>
> > > > There is no reasonable thing we can base the expectation as the exact
> > > > same device with a different cpu revision could support watchpoin
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL282298: Allow for tests to be disabled at runtime (authored
by fjricci).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24629?vs=71651&id=72360#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D
jingham added a subscriber: jingham.
jingham added a comment.
As long as the only way you can specify the black-list is explicitly on the
command line, I think this is fine. There should never be implicit searches
for a backlist file. You must have to supply it each time you run the
testsuite
fjricci added a comment.
Ok. Barring objections from anyone else, I'll merge this later on today then,
with the understanding that if it causes issues like the ones you describe, it
should be reverted.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24629
___
lldb-comm
fjricci added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24629#550823, @tfiala wrote:
> > > There is no reasonable thing we can base the expectation as the exact
> > > same device with a different cpu revision could support watchpoints just
> > > fine, so we could just define the list of these tes
tfiala accepted this revision.
tfiala added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I am accepting this with one strong reservation which I will explicitly call
out here:
- If somebody checks in changes that are broken, and claims they missed it
because they have an xfail ex
tfiala added a comment.
> > There is no reasonable thing we can base the expectation as the exact same
> > device with a different cpu revision could support watchpoints just fine,
> > so we could just define the list of these tests externally (in this case, I
> > would probably annotate them w
fjricci added a comment.
I do understand the complexity problem, and it was one of my concerns with this
as well. For my cases, the complexity here is significantly less than the
alternatives, but I also do understand if you don't think that's generally true.
It probably comes down to how often
fjricci updated this revision to Diff 71651.
fjricci added a comment.
Refactor re
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24629
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/configuration.py
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest_args.py
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/
labath added a comment.
I don't think this is a totally bad idea. In fact we already had something like
this (nobody used it though), before it was removed in
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL255040. If it goes in, we might start using it
actually -- e.g., currently we have watchpoint tests which fa
fjricci added a comment.
The issue is that you can only commit a patch to xfail a test that fails when
you run the test suite on master with no local changes.
The problem is that if you run into test failures on other branches or in
unconventional configurations, there is no good way to disable
zturner added a comment.
If a set of tests is failing, wouldn't you just want to xfail them?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24629
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
fjricci created this revision.
fjricci added reviewers: zturner, labath, tfiala.
fjricci added subscribers: lldb-commits, sas.
The current implementation of the test suite allows the user to run
a certain subset of tests using '-p', but does not allow the inverse,
where a user wants to run all but
13 matches
Mail list logo
