Thanks Jim, I'll definitely use that as a template next time!
Ah, I think I found the problem with the test. The makefile was in the
patch but wasn't committed. Trying that out now.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
