That doesn't seem to me a strong enough argument to me to justify devising a parallel mechanism to the one we have to use for our more complex tests when it also happens to serve this purpose perfectly well. Every time we make folks learn to diagnose a different mode of failure we are putting a burden on developers. I don't see that this one has proved to be worth that burden yet. It seems arbitrary and inexpressive to me.
But I'm certainly willing to be surprised as you go along. Jim > On Jan 29, 2018, at 6:12 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 6:11 PM Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote: > > The wider LLVM community tests a very different kind of tool than lldb, which > leaves me less moved by the argumentum ad verecundiam than I might otherwise > be. > > But it's not a different kind of test than this particular test, which is why > I suggested it. In fact, it's exactly the same kind of test as this. _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
