tberghammer added a subscriber: tberghammer.
tberghammer added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16936#346182, @labath wrote:
> I agree with the idea in general, but I wanted to ask what is your plan with
> the android decorators: For them we use the additional `api_levels` flag,
> which does not exist on other platforms/decorators. I suppose we could add
> that flag to `expectedFailureAll`, but I am not sure if that would be a good
> idea...
>
> Also, since we are doing all this refactoring, one more improvement I can
> think of is renaming `expectedFailureAll` to `expectedFailure`. It was named
> `All` because we already have an `expectedFailure` function, but I think that
> one is now more of an implementation detail and could be renamed to something
> else. Up to you...
My suggestion for the android API level is to add an argument to
expectedFailure where you can specify an arbitrary function and then we can
write a function called android_device_matches(...) what will return a function
checking for the API level. Then this can be used to create very specific xfail
conditions what are checking some property of the target system (e.g.
"@expectedFailure(fn=hardwareWatchpointsNotSupported)")
Something like this:
def android_device_matches(apis):
def impl(apis):
return get_device_api() in apis
return impl
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16936
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
