rnk added a comment.
I think the code to implement this is fine, but before we add this complexity
to lit, I just wanted to know if other folks who work on the LLDB test suite
are on board and want to use this approach to abstract over building apps for
different targets. I see @stella.stamenova is, but I wanted to hear from other
people involved in the LLDB lit test suite stuff. The `%compile %debug %opt %s`
lit substitution approach is limiting, but do people feel strongly that this
is much better?
================
Comment at:
llvm/utils/lit/tests/Inputs/shtest-keyword-command/keyword_helper.py:2
+
+def customCommand(line):
+ return ('STDOUT: ' + line, 'STDERR: ' + line)
----------------
Oh, the joys of multiprocessing and pickling...
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54731
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
