Thanks for doing this! Why do we care about the file name of the test,
shouldn't we be using the test class name for everything (that one I did
remember to change...)
Jim
> On Nov 3, 2018, at 11:18 PM, Jan Kratochvil via Phabricator
> wrote:
>
> jankratochvil added a comment.
>
> In
jingham added a subscriber: aprantl.
jingham added a comment.
Thanks for doing this! Why do we care about the file name of the test,
shouldn't we be using the test class name for everything (that one I did
remember to change...)
Jim
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54056
jankratochvil added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54056#1286635, @davide wrote:
> I don't think anybody will look at this until Monday, so if you want a quick
> fix you might consider renaming the test yourself.
Checked in as: https://reviews.llvm.org/rLLDB346089
Repository:
rL
davide added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54056#1286620, @jankratochvil wrote:
> It broke the testsuite for me:
>
> $ time
> PYTHONPATH=$PWD/lib64/python2.7/site-packages:$PWD/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/lldb
> ../llvm-git/tools/lldb/test/dotest.py --executable $PWD/bin/lldb -C
jankratochvil added a comment.
It broke the testsuite for me:
$ time
PYTHONPATH=$PWD/lib64/python2.7/site-packages:$PWD/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/lldb
../llvm-git/tools/lldb/test/dotest.py --executable $PWD/bin/lldb -C
$PWD/bin/clang -t
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL346053: Add an SBExpressionOptions setting mirroring the
exec commands --allow-jit. (authored by jingham, committed by
).
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
jingham added a comment.
--jit wouldn't describe what the flag actually does. Currently allow-jit and
the SB Setting I added for it set the execution policy to
eExecutionPolicyWhenNeeded, not eExecutionPolicyAlways. So this really does
just allow the JIT to be used, it doesn't force it.
If
aprantl added a comment.
Ah, I didn't realize that the behavior is to always try to interpret first.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54056
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
jasonmolenda added a comment.
To me --jit sounds like an imperative (i.e. don't use the IR interpreter, jit
and execute this expression), whereas --allow-jit seems closer to the behavior
here.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54056
aprantl accepted this revision.
aprantl added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
This is great! Why not just call it `--jit`?
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54056
___
lldb-commits mailing list
jingham created this revision.
jingham added a reviewer: aprantl.
Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits.
Sometimes you want to make sure that the target doesn't run at all when running
an expression, and you'd rather the expression fail if it would have run the
target. You can do this with
11 matches
Mail list logo
