> On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Zachary Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > The current issue with regards to getting tests working on Windows is that > the pexpect module doesn't exist on Windows. I've looked over a number of > the tests, and as far as I can tell, the pexpect module is used for two > primary reasons. The first is spawning lldb and waiting for it to terminate, > and the second is sending text commands to lldb, and reading the textual > results of these commands, comparing them against expected values. > > #1 can be solved without pexpect (e.g. by using the subprocess module), but > #2 is more difficult. > > It seems to me like there are two paths forward for getting the test suite > working on windows: > > 1) Port pexpect to Windows. I expect this to be difficult for the sole > reason that it hasn't been done yet, so despite the fact Windows does provide > a sufficiently rich API to do everything that pexpect does, something tells > me that there are some subtle issues that make this a difficult problem.
According to the pexpect sourceforge page the port depends on a working pty module. The pexpect author doesn't comment on how hard that is, he just says he doesn't know how to do it. OTOH the "real" expect has worked on Windows for quite some time now, so it can't be impossible... Anyway, it sounds like porting the "pty" module and not all of pexpect itself is the blocker. Maybe since we aren't trying to interact with real pty's for the testsuite, we could hack up a "good enough" pty module for the testsuite's purposes? > > 2) Change LLDB, and the test suite, to not rely on pexpect. The entire > problem seems to boil down to the fact that LLDB writes all of its output to > stdout and reads all of its input to stdin. When a command completes, In > CommandInterpreter::IOHandlerInputComplete, it calls this line: > > io_handler.GetOutputStreamFile()->PutCString(output); > > which ultimately resolves to a FILE* referring to stdout. What would it take > to make this output stream configurable? I'm imagining, for example, a > function that's exposed through the Python API that lets me write something > like > > lldb.SBDebugger.SetOutputStream(foo) > > "foo" here could be a python object that simply collects output, and then the > "expect" command on the Python side could just compare the expected value > against this buffer. It's not quite as simple as this, since expect also does the job of specifying the conditions under which an operation is considered complete, and then triggering the matches at that point (and timing out appropriately if the completion conditions don't occur, etc...) So if you want to replace pexpect you will have to duplicate that logic as well. We don't do a lot of fancy things with expect, but it is not entirely trivial. Jim _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
