[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D48782: LLDB Test Suite: Provide an Option to run all tests with Dwarf Package Format (DWP).

plotfi added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48782#1148498, @alexshap wrote: > @labath > > > I am not denying that there is value in running the dotest suite in all of > > these modes. In fact, I think that (the fact that we can use the same tests > > to exercise a lot of different scen

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D48782: LLDB Test Suite: Provide an Option to run all tests with Dwarf Package Format (DWP).

plotfi updated this revision to Diff 155452. https://reviews.llvm.org/D48782 Files: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/make/Makefile.rules Index: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/make/Makefile.rules === --- packages/Python/lldbsuite/te

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D48782: LLDB Test Suite: Provide an Option to run all tests with Dwarf Package Format (DWP).

plotfi added a comment. > What's the medium-to-long term solution? Havn't fully fleshed that out yet. Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/make/Makefile.rules:520 $(EXE) : $(OBJECTS) $(ARCHIVE_NAME) $(DYLIB_FILENAME) $(LD) $(OBJECTS) $(ARCHIVE_NAME) -L. -l$(DY

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D62034: compiler-rt/lib/builtins: s/#include /#include /g to match proper case.

plotfi added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: dexonsmith. In D62034#1506102 , @mstorsjo wrote: > Yes, MinGW headers are all lowercase. > > And the Windows SDK, where the file is spelled with a capital W, isn't > self-consistent (some headers include

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D62034: compiler-rt/lib/builtins: s/#include /#include /g to match proper case.

plotfi updated this revision to Diff 200067. plotfi added a comment. Herald added subscribers: openmp-commits, libcxx-commits, lldb-commits, cfe-commits, lebedev.ri, kadircet, arphaman, jkorous, christof, hiraditya, mgorny, ki.stfu, kubamracek. Herald added a reviewer: jfb. Herald added a reviewe

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D62034: compiler-rt/lib/builtins: s/#include /#include /g to match proper case.

plotfi added a comment. In D62034#1506879 , @mclow.lists wrote: > I have no objection to this; but I'm not really confident that this won't > break more than it solves. Actually, I think the existing VFS overlay would fix this without any changes. So I