================
Comment at: test/dotest.py:950
@@ -948,4 +949,3 @@
else:
- print lldbExecutablePath + " is not an executable"
- sys.exit(-1)
+ print lldbExecutablePath + " is not an executable, lldb tests will
fail."
else:
----------------
compnerd wrote:
> sas wrote:
> > compnerd wrote:
> > > Whats the point of running tests if they are going to fail since you
> > > don't have the necessary dependencies?
> > Because you can run other tests (not lldb) with this tool. Only the lldb
> > tests will fail if you choose to run them.
> Not sure I understand. What are these other tests?
lldb-mi and llgs for instance.
================
Comment at: test/tools/lldb-gdbserver/lldbgdbserverutils.py:66
@@ -62,1 +65,3 @@
+ else:
+ return _get_debug_monitor_from_lldb(lldb_exe, "lldb-gdbserver")
else:
----------------
compnerd wrote:
> sas wrote:
> > compnerd wrote:
> > > This might be simpler to read:
> > >
> > > for var in ("LLDB_DEBUGSERVER_PATH", "LLDB_EXEC"):
> > > if os.environ.get(var, None):
> > > return _get_debug_monitor_from_lldb(os.environ[var],
> > > "lldb-gdbserver")
> > > return None
> > Not really, because when the user specifies LLDB_DEBUGSERVER_PATH, we don't
> > want to go through _gert_debug_monitor_from_lldb again, we just want to use
> > the path directly.
> Why do we want the different behavior for the two?
The function name is pretty explicit: _get_debug_monitor_from_lldb gets the
debug monitor path by using the lldb path provided. If the user already
specified a path to a debug monitor, why would we go through a function that
tries to apply intelligence to guess it?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D6554
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
