> On May 12, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Cameron <came...@moodycamel.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry to break the build! Apparently 'make clean' isn't executing cleanly
> during the build step of the test, but I haven't the faintest idea why. It
> builds/runs fine locally for me (then again, I'm on Windows). The makefile is
> dead simple, and is identical to that of some other tests. Has anyone seen
> something like this before?
>
> Ah, I would have written a test using the APIs if I knew. I didn't see any
> other similar tests that set up LLDB from scratch without going through the
> command line. For reference, can you point me to one of these tests I can use
> as an example for the next time?
expression_command/fixits/TestFixIts.py is one. It makes a target, runs it
hits breakpoints and does some other stuff. Most of the Python API tests start
by creating the target in Python - whereas the command-line tests tend to use
the file command. So you can find lots of examples by searching for the string
"self.dbg.CreateTarget" in all the .py files.
Jim
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote:
> Note that while adding a "expr --allow-jit" flag to control this was great,
> there already was an SBExpressionOptions option and the appropriate flags
> available for this, so it was testable. I was just checking because there
> really shouldn't be anything we can do from a command that we can't do from
> the SB API's, but in this case the thing was already in the expression
> options.
>
> We do prefer not to write tests with the command line when you can do it with
> the Python API's. In our experience, command line tests have tended to be
> more fragile. It's not necessary to change the test, there are plenty of
> other command line tests lying around. Just for future reference...
>
> Jim
>
> > On May 9, 2016, at 1:01 PM, Sean Callanan via lldb-commits
> > <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > spyffe accepted this revision.
> > spyffe added a comment.
> > This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
> >
> > This patch is fine. I especially appreciate the time you took making the
> > IRInterpreter properly testable. I will use this myself.
> >
> >
> > ================
> > Comment at: source/Commands/CommandObjectExpression.cpp:67
> > @@ -67,1 +66,3 @@
> > + { LLDB_OPT_SET_1 | LLDB_OPT_SET_2, false, "top-level", 'p',
> > OptionParser::eNoArgument , NULL, NULL, 0, eArgTypeNone,
> > "Interpret the expression as top-level definitions rather than code to be
> > immediately executed."},
> > + { LLDB_OPT_SET_1 | LLDB_OPT_SET_2, false, "allow-jit", 'j',
> > OptionParser::eRequiredArgument, nullptr, nullptr, 0, eArgTypeBoolean,
> > "Controls whether the expression can fall back to being JITted if it's not
> > supported by the interpreter (defaults to true)."}
> > };
> > ----------------
> > This is a great feature which I will use in test cases.
> >
> > ================
> > Comment at: source/Expression/IRInterpreter.cpp:1102
> > @@ -1058,1 +1101,3 @@
> > + }
> > + break;
> > case Instruction::GetElementPtr:
> > ----------------
> > Looks all right to me. Thank you!
> >
> >
> > http://reviews.llvm.org/D19124
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lldb-commits mailing list
> > lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
>
>
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
