Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

Also, sb api and command line test are neither mutually exclusive nor the only 2 options. Sean mentioned the idea of a dsl for example. I mentioned the idea of a command that is independent of the normal ui command line. There are lots of possibilities if you look. Also our current situation is

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

There's also a cost to *not* writing test cases, which is paid proportionally to how difficult it is to write test cases. That said, aren't the existing lldbinline tests an example of the behavior you're objecting to? And that is a relatively recent addition which I have never seen or heard of

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

On Sep 14, 2016, at 5:13 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > I don't blame you for being scared of command tests. I don't support their > use in the current LLDB test suite either, for exactly the same reasons you > and Jason have expressed. But I do think it's possible to come

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

zturner accepted this revision. zturner added a comment. lgtm from my point of view after `LLDB_TEST_CXX_COMPILER` and `LLDB_TEST_C_COMPILER` are added. One question: Currently the tests appear to run all commands until the end of the file, and then do 1 pass over the output through

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281569 - Make the keys enumerations for options and resolvers enum classes.

Author: jingham Date: Wed Sep 14 20:47:22 2016 New Revision: 281569 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=281569=rev Log: Make the keys enumerations for options and resolvers enum classes. This keeps them from conflicting with other symbols names, so it's worth their being less convenient

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

I actually like the idea of feeding command lines. Again, not when the command you're running prints a huge block of text and you try to match it. But for "get the debugger into the state where i can reproduce the bug", and sometimes the step to actually repro it, I think it's hands down the best.

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

I agree that if all the tests look like the ones in this review there will be no way to test 100% of the things we currently test. At the same time, I see this as just a beginning. A replacement for lldbinline but one which is more extensible. To test things like you said like multi-threaded

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

Also, w.r.t: > Aside from write imperative control flow constructs, which I see as a > positive rather than a negative. I wrote a bunch of tests to test that stepping behavior for swift and C was reasonable. When stepping through source code, there is not one correct way to write the line

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

You can get thing 1, thing 2, and thing 3 in declarative ways with a command line api too. Like the example I gave earlier: (lldb) print-dev threads[3].id 0x1234 (lldb) print-dev threads[4].id 0x2345 You're getting one value at a time, not a space separated list. Although I think we could take

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 3:56 PM, Chris Bieneman wrote: > > @jingham and @zturner, we can also take advantage of FileCheck's use of > regular expressions to write robust matchers. In general LLVM has managed to > change text output formats many times in radical ways, and LIT's

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

If the internal thing is three things in a list, you get back thing one, thing two and thing three in declarative ways rather than "I got three space separated things, maybe they had spaces in them, maybe there were quotes, etc, and don't ever change this now or you'll have to go fix all the

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM Jim Ingham wrote: > > > 4. You can test a LOT more things when you are able to use an api that > doesn't have to be stable. > > When I mentioned that API, I had in mind an internal Python module that > you could use to grub into internals. I'm

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

zturner added inline comments. Comment at: lit/CMakeLists.txt:14 @@ -13,1 +13,3 @@ +option(LLDB_TEST_CLANG "Use in-tree clang when testing lldb" Off) + beanz wrote: > zturner wrote: > > beanz wrote: > > > Disallowing setting both seems reasonable to me. I'm not

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

beanz added a comment. @zturner, we can absolutely add flags into the substitutions. Other projects do that too. Comment at: lit/CMakeLists.txt:14 @@ -13,1 +13,3 @@ +option(LLDB_TEST_CLANG "Use in-tree clang when testing lldb" Off) + zturner wrote: > beanz

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM Jason Molenda wrote: > I have to concur with Jim's point -- writing & maintaining the gdb > testsuite for years, which was based on commands & expected output like > these lit tests, was a huge drag on everyone's productivity as the debugger >

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

zturner added a comment. One more question: Is there a way in lit that we can append command line flags to the run lines even if the user doesn't specify them? For example in the substitution? For example, if someone writes `# RUN: %cxx %p/Inputs/call-function.cpp -g -o %t && %lldb -b -s %s

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

I have to concur with Jim's point -- writing & maintaining the gdb testsuite for years, which was based on commands & expected output like these lit tests, was a huge drag on everyone's productivity as the debugger changed over time. This style of test looks wonderfully easy to read & write &

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

beanz added inline comments. Comment at: lit/CMakeLists.txt:14 @@ -13,1 +13,3 @@ +option(LLDB_TEST_CLANG "Use in-tree clang when testing lldb" Off) + Disallowing setting both seems reasonable to me. I'm not entirely sure how to connect `LLDB_TEST_COMPILER` up

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

zturner added inline comments. Comment at: lit/CMakeLists.txt:14 @@ -13,1 +13,3 @@ +option(LLDB_TEST_CLANG "Use in-tree clang when testing lldb" Off) + beanz wrote: > The `LLDB_TEST_COMPILER` option doesn't signify that it is using an in-tree > or out-of-tree

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

zturner added a comment. Todd probably knows about this since he added the gtest target to the Xcode project. I imagine there's a python test suite target and a gtest target. Isn't it possible to have a third target which when you build it, builds the other two targets (which would run the

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

beanz added a comment. @granata.enrico, it seems to me that this is a problem the people maintaining the Xcode project should address. I know it is possible to create targets in Xcode projects that call shell commands or makefiles (CMake does this). It is therefore possible that the Xcode

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

beanz updated this revision to Diff 71460. beanz added a comment. - Use lit.util.which instead of constructing paths, which adds exe suffixes and uses proper path seperators - Fixed spelling error in list(APPEND ...) command https://reviews.llvm.org/D24591 Files: lit/CMakeLists.txt

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:00 PM Zachary Turner wrote: > > 4. You can test a LOT more things when you are able to use an api that > doesn't have to be stable. > Regarding this point specifically, I think in the past Jim has even floated the idea of having a "private API" that

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:51 PM Sean Callanan wrote: > How different is that really from > > (lldb) script lldb.frame.FindVariable("argc").GetValue() > '1' > (lldb) script lldb.process.GetNumThreads() > 1 > (lldb) script lldb.process.GetThreadAtIndex(0).GetThreadID() >

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

granata.enrico added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24591#543277, @beanz wrote: > @granata.enrico, we could migrate the existing tests into being executed by > lit even if they aren't using lit's features, so if that direction is desired > we could get everything in lit. That said,

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

beanz added a comment. @zturner, on many of your comments I need to do some research and get back to you. Particularly I need to understand how lit works on Windows better. I do have one inline response. @granata.enrico, we could migrate the existing tests into being executed by lit even if

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

zturner added a comment. Also, it occurred to me that if all tests were like this (and yes, that's a tall order to imagine a world where not a single test was written using the Python API), we could probably actually drop the Python 3.5 requirement on Windows. Another thing that's nice about

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

How different is that really from (lldb) script lldb.frame.FindVariable("argc").GetValue() '1' (lldb) script lldb.process.GetNumThreads() 1 (lldb) script lldb.process.GetThreadAtIndex(0).GetThreadID() 3514809 ? If it's developer-only, then this is even fairly well-documented using e.g. "script

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

zturner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24591#543242, @jingham wrote: > Writing tests this way means we're going back to testing the command line > commands. That was what gdb did for the most part, and you ended up > terrified of making changes that might effect command output,

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

jingham added a comment. Writing tests this way means we're going back to testing the command line commands. That was what gdb did for the most part, and you ended up terrified of making changes that might effect command output, not because the change was hard but because knew you would have

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

granata.enrico added a subscriber: granata.enrico. granata.enrico added a comment. One piece of concern that I have is the multiplication of things that "testing LLDB" means. We have unit tests, Python tests, and now LIT tests. That means, for each change I want to commit, if I want confidence

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

beanz updated this revision to Diff 71452. beanz added a comment. Added lldb-server as a test dependency based on feedback from @tfiala. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24591 Files: lit/CMakeLists.txt lit/Expr/Inputs/anonymous-struct.cpp lit/Expr/Inputs/call-function.cpp

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

tfiala added a comment. One other items we discussed that is sure to come up: - Right now this is geared towards one compile per .test file (similar to something Zachary brought up before). One way we could get the multiple debug info formats handled is to have a .test for each of the

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

zturner added a comment. Couple questions: 1. What is the status of lit and Python 3? Running the test suite on Windows **requires** Python 3.5+, so if we want this to work on Windows, we will need to make sure the lit infrastructure is compatible with Python 3. Comment at:

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

spyffe added a subscriber: spyffe. spyffe added a comment. I like this concept a lot, and I think it's great for testcases that actually need to interact with the command line. I'm concerned, though, that the separation of input from command files makes tests more complex to write. One thing

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

tfiala accepted this revision. tfiala added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Assuming this doesn't break anybody, this LGTM. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24591 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

tfiala added inline comments. Comment at: lit/CMakeLists.txt:14 @@ -13,1 +13,3 @@ +option(LLDB_TEST_CLANG "Use in-tree clang when testing lldb" Off) + tfiala wrote: > The macOS bots (and all the Swift ones) build with in-tree clang. I'm glad > to have this

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

tfiala added a comment. Looks like a nice start. Thanks for pulling this together, Chris! Comment at: lit/CMakeLists.txt:14 @@ -13,1 +13,3 @@ +option(LLDB_TEST_CLANG "Use in-tree clang when testing lldb" Off) + The macOS bots (and all the Swift ones) build

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

zturner added a comment. Huh... This is a surprise. Looking forward to reviewing this. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24591 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24591: [LIT] First pass of LLDB LIT support

beanz created this revision. beanz added reviewers: zturner, labath, jingham, tfiala. beanz added a subscriber: lldb-commits. Herald added subscribers: mgorny, beanz. This patch supplies basic infrastructure for LLDB to use LIT, and ports a few basic test cases from the LLDB test suite into LIT.

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281545 - More cleanup in `frame diagnose, ` eliminating a bunch of messy cases.

Author: spyffe Date: Wed Sep 14 16:54:28 2016 New Revision: 281545 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=281545=rev Log: More cleanup in `frame diagnose,` eliminating a bunch of messy cases. Modified: lldb/trunk/include/lldb/Core/Disassembler.h

Re: [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281536 - Replaced two instances of std::function with auto.

Yea, it's too bad about the type. This is one case where auto isn't just syntactic sugar, it's actually necessary. On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:07 PM Sean Callanan via lldb-commits < lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Author: spyffe > Date: Wed Sep 14 15:58:31 2016 > New Revision: 281536 > >

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281536 - Replaced two instances of std::function with auto.

Author: spyffe Date: Wed Sep 14 15:58:31 2016 New Revision: 281536 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=281536=rev Log: Replaced two instances of std::function with auto. Thanks to Zachary Turner for the suggestion. It's distasteful that the actual type of the lambda can't be spelled

Re: [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281534 - Cleaned up a little bit of redundant code in 'frame diagnose.`

Okay, one sec. Sean > On Sep 14, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:38 PM Sean Callanan via lldb-commits > > wrote: > > Instruction::Operand *origin_operand =

Re: [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281534 - Cleaned up a little bit of redundant code in 'frame diagnose.`

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:38 PM Sean Callanan via lldb-commits < lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Instruction::Operand *origin_operand = nullptr; > -if (operands[0].m_type == Instruction::Operand::Type::Register && > -operands[0].m_clobbered == true &&

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281534 - Cleaned up a little bit of redundant code in 'frame diagnose.`

Author: spyffe Date: Wed Sep 14 15:29:57 2016 New Revision: 281534 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=281534=rev Log: Cleaned up a little bit of redundant code in 'frame diagnose.` Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Target/StackFrame.cpp Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Target/StackFrame.cpp

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281528 - Use 'enum class' instead of 'enum' in NativeRegisterContextLinux_x86_x64.

Author: valentinagiusti Date: Wed Sep 14 15:12:12 2016 New Revision: 281528 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=281528=rev Log: Use 'enum class' instead of 'enum' in NativeRegisterContextLinux_x86_x64. Reviewers: labath, clayborg, zturner Subscribers: lldb-commits Differential

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24578: Use 'enum class' instead of 'enum' in NativeRegisterContextLinux_x86_x64.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL281528: Use 'enum class' instead of 'enum' in NativeRegisterContextLinux_x86_x64. (authored by valentinagiusti). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24578?vs=71412=71418#toc Repository:

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24578: Use 'enum class' instead of 'enum' in NativeRegisterContextLinux_x86_x64.

zturner accepted this revision. zturner added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Thanks! https://reviews.llvm.org/D24578 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org

Re: [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281507 - Use Intel CPU flags to determine target supported features.

Sorry I didn’t see your comments on the web interface, I’ll submit a followup patch with these changes. From: Zachary Turner [mailto:ztur...@google.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 7:47 PM To: Giusti, Valentina ; lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org Subject: Re:

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281520 - Add SB API's for writing breakpoints to & creating the from a file.

Author: jingham Date: Wed Sep 14 14:07:35 2016 New Revision: 281520 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=281520=rev Log: Add SB API's for writing breakpoints to & creating the from a file. Moved the guts of the code from CommandObjectBreakpoint to Target (should have done it that way in

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281519 - Fix some const-ness issues with BreakpointID & BreakpointIDList.

Author: jingham Date: Wed Sep 14 14:05:27 2016 New Revision: 281519 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=281519=rev Log: Fix some const-ness issues with BreakpointID & BreakpointIDList. Modified: lldb/trunk/include/lldb/Breakpoint/BreakpointID.h

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24284: [lldb] Read modules from memory when a local copy is not available

wallace updated this revision to Diff 71409. wallace added a comment. rebase https://reviews.llvm.org/D24284 Files: source/Plugins/ObjectFile/PECOFF/ObjectFilePECOFF.cpp source/Plugins/ObjectFile/PECOFF/ObjectFilePECOFF.h Index: source/Plugins/ObjectFile/PECOFF/ObjectFilePECOFF.h

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24284: [lldb] Read modules from memory when a local copy is not available

wallace updated this revision to Diff 71407. wallace added a comment. fix pointers https://reviews.llvm.org/D24284 Files: source/Plugins/ObjectFile/PECOFF/ObjectFilePECOFF.cpp source/Plugins/ObjectFile/PECOFF/ObjectFilePECOFF.h Index: source/Plugins/ObjectFile/PECOFF/ObjectFilePECOFF.h

Re: [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281507 - Use Intel CPU flags to determine target supported features.

Can probably do the same for XStateType as well: enum class XStateType { Invalid, FXSAVE, XSAVE }; On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:46 AM Zachary Turner wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:36 AM Valentina Giusti via lldb-commits < > lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > >

Re: [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281507 - Use Intel CPU flags to determine target supported features.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:36 AM Valentina Giusti via lldb-commits < lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > == > --- > lldb/trunk/source/Plugins/Process/Linux/NativeRegisterContextLinux_x86_64.h > (original) > +++ >

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24559: Use Intel CPU flags to determine target supported features.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL281507: Use Intel CPU flags to determine target supported features. (authored by valentinagiusti). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24559?vs=71371=71390#toc Repository: rL LLVM

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r281507 - Use Intel CPU flags to determine target supported features.

Author: valentinagiusti Date: Wed Sep 14 12:27:48 2016 New Revision: 281507 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=281507=rev Log: Use Intel CPU flags to determine target supported features. Summary: This patch uses the instruction CPUID to verify that FXSAVE, XSAVE, AVX and MPX are

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D20835: Mark the current column when displaying the context of the current breakpoint on the terminal.

tfiala added inline comments. Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/load_unload/TestLoadUnload.py:163 @@ +162,3 @@ +# mixed in with stop locations. +self.dbg.SetUseColor(False) + Upon further reflection, there is a logically

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D20835: Mark the current column when displaying the context of the current breakpoint on the terminal.

tfiala added a comment. Greg had a few pieces of feedback as well that we just discussed: - Change the on/off switch for column marking to support the following states: - terminal-code-only (i.e. only do terminal code highlighting, not the text caret) - terminal-code + text caret - text

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24559: Use Intel CPU flags to determine target supported features.

Can you still make the enum an enum class? On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:07 AM Valentina Giusti via lldb-commits < lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > valentinagiusti updated this revision to Diff 71371. > valentinagiusti added a comment. > > moved header to the bottom and moved enum into header

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24559: Use Intel CPU flags to determine target supported features.

valentinagiusti updated this revision to Diff 71371. valentinagiusti added a comment. moved header to the bottom and moved enum into header file https://reviews.llvm.org/D24559 Files: source/Plugins/Process/Linux/NativeRegisterContextLinux_x86_64.cpp

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24514: Add support for DW_AT_ranges_base attribute

clayborg accepted this revision. clayborg added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Looks good. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24514 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24559: Use Intel CPU flags to determine target supported features.

valentinagiusti marked 2 inline comments as done. valentinagiusti added a comment. This fixes the fact that there is no proper check that the kernel or the hardware are actually supporting either AVX or MPX. Before this patch, the code only relied on a "hack" that checks if it's possible to do

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24559: Use Intel CPU flags to determine target supported features.

labath added a comment. I have to admit I have very little knowledge of this part of the code. Could you provide a bit of a high-level overview of this change? Does this fix an existing problem ? (If so, should it have a test?) Or is it just a refactor? Comment at:

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D20835: Mark the current column when displaying the context of the current breakpoint on the terminal.

tfiala added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D20835#541901, @jingham wrote: > See inlined comments. Otherwise this is great. Great, I'll fix those up. I like the command-line option idea. https://reviews.llvm.org/D20835 ___ lldb-commits

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24514: Add support for DW_AT_ranges_base attribute

labath added a comment. Thanks for adding the test case. LGTM from my side. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24514 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24514: Add support for DW_AT_ranges_base attribute

tberghammer updated this revision to Diff 71316. tberghammer added a comment. Adding a new test case https://reviews.llvm.org/D24514 Files: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/python_api/symbol-context/two-files/TestSymbolContextTwoFiles.py

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24549: [LLDB][MIPS] Skip some test case which were causing LLDB to go into infinite loop

labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. lgtm. In general, feel free to manage mips decorators as you see fit. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24549 ___ lldb-commits mailing list

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24549: [LLDB][MIPS] Skip some test case which were causing LLDB to go into infinite loop

nitesh.jain created this revision. nitesh.jain added reviewers: clayborg, labath. nitesh.jain added subscribers: jaydeep, bhushan, slthakur, lldb-commits. These test cases tries to insert breakpoint in atomic sequence and cause atomic sequence to restart when breakpoint is hit .