Timmmm wrote: > If you're going to fix it, consider first sending a PR with test cases that > you know fail (so it "passes" for current lldb behaviour). Then your later > fixes will be much easier to review as the test diff will be much smaller. > There's a rule for this somewhere in llvm's docs, it's often done for codegen > failures.
Yeah I wasn't sure about this - a test requires running OpenOCD (which is very unfriendly to automation), and connecting it to a RISC-V chip, *and* it must be slow enough that OpenOCD sends an invalid notification packet. This only happens for me because the chip is actually a SystemVerilog simulation. Unless someone has already set that up (doesn't seem like it) that is unfortunately an enormous amount of work. :-/ https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/203204 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
