Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

First, I want to apologise for derailing the tab completion review. However, now that the cat's out of the bag, let me elaborate on what I meant. For example, this is how a typical instruction emulation test looks right now: TEST_F(Testx86AssemblyInspectionEngine,

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

Ah, no. Pavel suggested that the unwind plan unittests should be turned into FileCheck tests, and then Davide suggested that he'd heard unwind testing is difficult (he was conflating the unwind sources -> UnwindPlan IR conversions and the runtime use of UnwindPlans to walk the stack & find

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

Sure I don’t think anyone disputes that, but I thought we were discussing an ideal end state On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:31 PM Jason Molenda wrote: > > > > On Feb 12, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:52 PM

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:52 PM Jason Molenda wrote: >> >> >> > On Feb 12, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Zachary Turner via Phabricator >> > wrote: >> > >> > zturner

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:52 PM Jason Molenda wrote: > > > > On Feb 12, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Zachary Turner via Phabricator < > revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > zturner added a comment. > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1005513, @jasonmolenda wrote: > > > > I

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Zachary Turner via Phabricator > wrote: > > zturner added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1005513, @jasonmolenda wrote: > >> No, the unwind unittests that exist today should stay written as unit tests. >> These

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote: > > > > On Feb 7, 2018, at 6:40 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > and the command line in the log file doesn’t ever work for me' > > That's a bug. Can you show me an example where this breaks for you? I'd

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

> On Feb 7, 2018, at 6:40 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > and the command line in the log file doesn’t ever work for me' That's a bug. Can you show me an example where this breaks for you? I'd like to investigate this. -- adrian

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

Yes but debugging across several api calls is annoying, and the command line in the log file doesn’t ever work for me On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:07 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > jingham added a comment. > > If a dotest test fails, you go to the

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

Also, failures that are easy to reproduce are easy to debug. When a test fails this way, you get a command line that can reproduce the problem that can be debugged directly without having to debug across the python boundary. I find that very helpful personally On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:48 PM

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

Same reason that people use perl for heavy text processing, R for scientific programming, python for rapid iteration. It’s what they’re built for. When something is built for a very focused specific problem domain, the problems in that domain can be expressed very concisely and naturally. In the