On 6 April 2016 at 06:23, Todd Fiala wrote:
> Okay, thanks all.
>
> FWIW I am running them on the OS X side. I haven't seen any stability
> problems yet. I'd also expect them to be very stable, much more like a
> compiler test, since there are far fewer parts in a small-scoped C++ unit
> test (v
Okay, thanks all.
FWIW I am running them on the OS X side. I haven't seen any stability
problems yet. I'd also expect them to be very stable, much more like a
compiler test, since there are far fewer parts in a small-scoped C++ unit
test (vs., say, our Python tests which are end-to-end and have
We're not running them yet. I'd like to add that at some point, but I
haven't gotten around to that yet...
On 5 April 2016 at 09:39, Tamas Berghammer wrote:
> I think we don't. If we consider them stable enough for enabling them on a
> buildbot AND we agree to revert changes breaking the unittest
I think we don't. If we consider them stable enough for enabling them on a
buildbot AND we agree to revert changes breaking the unittests then I am
happy with enabling them (doing it should take very little effort from our
side). Otherwise I would prefer to wait until we can get them to a stable
st
One more update:
The Green Dragon OS X LLDB builder now actually runs the gtests instead of
just building them.
The gtests run as a phase right before the Python test suite. A non-zero
value returning from the gtests will cause the OS X LLDB build to fail.
Right now, tracking down the cause of t
