> On Jan 13, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:15 AM Enrico Granata via lldb-commits > <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > + > +class CommandScriptImmediateOutputTestCase (PExpectTest): > Does the bug that you were trying to fix occur only when using the > command_script.py file from the lldb command line? If you load it from > within lldb via an LLDB command, does the problem still occur? If the > problem you are fixing is not specific to the LLDB command line, I would > prefer if you write this not as a pexpect test.
I would love to not touch pexpect :-) But in this case, I can’t see a way around it. I am trying to detect whether some text is “physically” printed to stdout. And pexpect seems the most obvious straightforward way to get that to happen. Note that, in this bug, the result object is filled in correctly even if nothing gets printed, so looking at the result won’t quite cut it - it really needs to detect output to stdout > > + > + mydir = TestBase.compute_mydir(__file__) > + > + def setUp(self): > + # Call super's setUp(). > + PExpectTest.setUp(self) > + > + @skipIfRemote # test not remote-ready llvm.org/pr24813 > <http://llvm.org/pr24813> > + @expectedFlakeyFreeBSD("llvm.org/pr25172 <http://llvm.org/pr25172> fails > rarely on the buildbot") > + @expectedFlakeyLinux("llvm.org/pr25172 <http://llvm.org/pr25172>") > Are these necessary? The windows one is necessary (but not if you change > this to not being a pexpect test as I've requested above), but why are the > other ones necessary? Do we support remote pexpect? As for FreeBSD and Linux, they might not be necessary, but I’d rather much remove them (or let the relevant platform owners) remove them in a separate commit Thanks, - Enrico 📩 egranata@.com ☎️ 27683
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
