jingham added a comment.
The point of --batch is that if the program crashes, control is transferred
from the script to the user so that they can inspect the crash. lit would just
hang at that point, right?
I worry that people will use this RUN example as an template, and then make a
test
zturner added a comment.
Actually I may have misunderstood the help text. It sounds like it may be
referring to a crash of the inferior, not a crash of LLDB itself. If the test
contains no run commands (as this one doesn't), then it doesn't seem like
there's any risk of this happening, and
zturner added a comment.
If your commands are A, B, C, and D but A crashes and returns to the
interactive prompt, will it still try to execute B, C, and D? If so then I
guess that would work (I haven't tried). OTOH, there's a risk of people
forgetting to do this (but I'm not sure if the risk
jingham added a comment.
Rather than adding another flag, can't you just put -o quit at the end of your
RUN line?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43471
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
zturner added a comment.
One issue I can see with this is that if you check the documentation of -b it
says this:
-b
--batch
Tells the debugger to run the commands from -s, -S, -o & -O, and
then quit. However if any run command stopped due to a signal or
crash, the
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL325568: Handle typeof() expressions (authored by
JDevlieghere, committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43471?vs=134965=135025#toc
davide accepted this revision.
davide added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43471
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
jingham accepted this revision.
jingham added a comment.
Looks good
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43471
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
JDevlieghere updated this revision to Diff 134965.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
Thanks for the review Jim! I've updated the test accordingly.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43471
Files:
lit/Expr/TestTypeOfDeclTypeExpr.test
source/Symbol/ClangASTContext.cpp
Index:
jingham added a comment.
Other than that it's fine.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43471
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
jingham added a comment.
Oh, somehow my browser hadn't updated to show the lit test. Ignore the
previous comment.
This is fine, except can you make the test check not depend on the particular
result variable number ($0, $1, $2). You aren't testing here that the result
variable numbers are
JDevlieghere added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43471#1012484, @jingham wrote:
> The code part of this looks fine. I had a few quibbles with the test, see
> inline.
Jim, it looks like you're commenting on an older version of the diff. I've
since switched to checking this with
jingham requested changes to this revision.
jingham added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
The code part of this looks fine. I had a few quibbles with the test, see
inline.
Comment at:
JDevlieghere updated this revision to Diff 134955.
JDevlieghere marked an inline comment as done.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
Make sure the lit test actually checks the lldb output instead of the # CHECK
lines.
Without the check-next, CHECK matches the # CHECK lines, as they are printed by
JDevlieghere updated this revision to Diff 134954.
JDevlieghere marked an inline comment as done.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
Do this for decltype too
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43471
Files:
lit/Expr/TestTypeOfDeclTypeExpr.test
source/Symbol/ClangASTContext.cpp
Index:
davide added inline comments.
Comment at: lit/Expr/TestTypeOfExpr.test:2
+# RUN: %lldb -b -s %s | FileCheck %s
+
+expression int i; __typeof__(i) j = 1; j
I really really love how concise and clear the new test is!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43471
JDevlieghere marked 2 inline comments as done.
JDevlieghere added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Symbol/ClangASTContext.cpp:5264
- case clang::Type::TypeOfExpr:
- case clang::Type::TypeOf:
case clang::Type::Decltype:
case clang::Type::TemplateSpecialization:
JDevlieghere updated this revision to Diff 134942.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
Change to lit test
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43471
Files:
lit/Expr/TestTypeOfExpr.test
source/Symbol/ClangASTContext.cpp
Index: source/Symbol/ClangASTContext.cpp
davide requested changes to this revision.
davide added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Jonas, this looks a good use case for using lit.
Is it possible to reuse the machinery we use in `lldb/lit/Expr` ?
If not, well, we know there's something we can improve :)
labath added a comment.
Seems straight-forward enough, but technically Jim is the owner of the
expression evaluator these days, so I'll leave the honours to him.
Comment at:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/expression_command/test/TestExprs.py:270
+# output: (typeof
JDevlieghere updated this revision to Diff 134935.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
Formatting
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43471
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/expression_command/test/TestExprs.py
source/Symbol/ClangASTContext.cpp
Index: source/Symbol/ClangASTContext.cpp
JDevlieghere created this revision.
JDevlieghere added reviewers: aprantl, jingham, davide, labath.
Before this patch, LLDB was not able to evaluate expressions that
resulted in a value with a typeof-type.
(lldb) p int i; __typeof__(i) j = 1; j
(typeof (i)) $0 =
This fixes that. The type is
22 matches
Mail list logo
