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

[Pavel Labath via lldb-commits]

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, TestSimple64bitFrameFunction) {
  std::unique_ptr engine = Getx86_64Inspector();

  // 'int main() { }' compiled for x86_64-apple-macosx with clang
  uint8_t data[] = {
  0x55, // offset 0 -- pushq %rbp
  0x48, 0x89, 0xe5, // offset 1 -- movq %rsp, %rbp
  0x31, 0xc0,   // offset 4 -- xorl %eax, %eax
  0x5d, // offset 6 -- popq %rbp
  0xc3  // offset 7 -- retq
  };

  AddressRange sample_range(0x1000, sizeof(data));

  UnwindPlan unwind_plan(eRegisterKindLLDB);
  EXPECT_TRUE(engine->GetNonCallSiteUnwindPlanFromAssembly(
  data, sizeof(data), sample_range, unwind_plan));

  // Expect four unwind rows:
  // 0: CFA=rsp +8 => rsp=CFA+0 rip=[CFA-8]
  // 1: CFA=rsp+16 => rbp=[CFA-16] rsp=CFA+0 rip=[CFA-8]
  // 4: CFA=rbp+16 => rbp=[CFA-16] rsp=CFA+0 rip=[CFA-8]
  // 7: CFA=rsp +8 => rsp=CFA+0 rip=[CFA-8]

  EXPECT_TRUE(unwind_plan.GetInitialCFARegister() == k_rsp);
  EXPECT_TRUE(unwind_plan.GetUnwindPlanValidAtAllInstructions() ==
  eLazyBoolYes);
  EXPECT_TRUE(unwind_plan.GetSourcedFromCompiler() == eLazyBoolNo);

  UnwindPlan::Row::RegisterLocation regloc;

  // 0: CFA=rsp +8 => rsp=CFA+0 rip=[CFA-8]
  UnwindPlan::RowSP row_sp = unwind_plan.GetRowForFunctionOffset(0);
  EXPECT_EQ(0ull, row_sp->GetOffset());
  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetCFAValue().GetRegisterNumber() == k_rsp);
  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetCFAValue().IsRegisterPlusOffset() == true);
  EXPECT_EQ(8, row_sp->GetCFAValue().GetOffset());

  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetRegisterInfo(k_rip, regloc));
  EXPECT_TRUE(regloc.IsAtCFAPlusOffset());
  EXPECT_EQ(-8, regloc.GetOffset());

  // 1: CFA=rsp+16 => rbp=[CFA-16] rsp=CFA+0 rip=[CFA-8]
  row_sp = unwind_plan.GetRowForFunctionOffset(1);
  EXPECT_EQ(1ull, row_sp->GetOffset());
  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetCFAValue().GetRegisterNumber() == k_rsp);
  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetCFAValue().IsRegisterPlusOffset() == true);
  EXPECT_EQ(16, row_sp->GetCFAValue().GetOffset());

  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetRegisterInfo(k_rip, regloc));
  EXPECT_TRUE(regloc.IsAtCFAPlusOffset());
  EXPECT_EQ(-8, regloc.GetOffset());

  // 4: CFA=rbp+16 => rbp=[CFA-16] rsp=CFA+0 rip=[CFA-8]
  row_sp = unwind_plan.GetRowForFunctionOffset(4);
  EXPECT_EQ(4ull, row_sp->GetOffset());
  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetCFAValue().GetRegisterNumber() == k_rbp);
  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetCFAValue().IsRegisterPlusOffset() == true);
  EXPECT_EQ(16, row_sp->GetCFAValue().GetOffset());

  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetRegisterInfo(k_rip, regloc));
  EXPECT_TRUE(regloc.IsAtCFAPlusOffset());
  EXPECT_EQ(-8, regloc.GetOffset());

  // 7: CFA=rsp +8 => rsp=CFA+0 rip=[CFA-8]
  row_sp = unwind_plan.GetRowForFunctionOffset(7);
  EXPECT_EQ(7ull, row_sp->GetOffset());
  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetCFAValue().GetRegisterNumber() == k_rsp);
  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetCFAValue().IsRegisterPlusOffset() == true);
  EXPECT_EQ(8, row_sp->GetCFAValue().GetOffset());

  EXPECT_TRUE(row_sp->GetRegisterInfo(k_rip, regloc));
  EXPECT_TRUE(regloc.IsAtCFAPlusOffset());
  EXPECT_EQ(-8, regloc.GetOffset());
}

As you see, in order to write a test like this, somebody had to
assemble a function demonstrating the issue, copy
it's bytes into the test, and then write series of C++ checks to make
sure that the result is correct.

 With FileCheck, we could basically remove everything **except** the
comments from this test. So this
would become something like:

# RUN: llvm-mc -target x86_64-apple-macosx %s | lldb-test unwind
--emulate - | FileCheck %s
.text:
  pushq %rbp
# CHECK: 0: CFA=rsp +8 => rsp=CFA+0 rip=[CFA-8]
 movq %rsp, %rbp
# CHECK: 1: CFA=rsp+16 => rbp=[CFA-16] rsp=CFA+0 rip=[CFA-8]
  xorl %eax, %eax
# CHECK: 4: CFA=rbp+16 => rbp=[CFA-16] rsp=CFA+0 rip=[CFA-8]
 popq %rbp
# CHECK: 7: CFA=rsp +8 => rsp=CFA+0 rip=[CFA-8]
 retq


I was hoping we could all agree on that the latter test looks much
simpler. And it still is (can be made to) testing the exact same
functionality as the original test.

I think part of the reason that this part of code lacks better
coverage (even though it's very suitable for unit testing) is that its
very tedious to write tests like this. If adding a new test were as
simple as this, we could easily add dozens of tests for each
architecture.

PS: I was deliberately trying to stay clear of the discussion on how
to test the higher level unwinding logic, as I know that's a more
complicated/contentious issue. However, Davide seemed like he was
looking for things to FileCheck-ify, so I wanted to point this out to
him, as I believe this would make testing of this particular component
much easier, with very little upfront investment.


On 12 February 2018 at 22:29, 

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

[Jason Molenda via lldb-commits]

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 spilled registers), 
so he thought that this FileCheck could help there.  I was clarifying that (1) 
I don't want the existing tests I wrote changed out of unittests, and (2) 
FileCheck does not help the actually difficult part of testing the unwinder at 
all.  I provided an example of why this was difficult, outlining the possible 
approaches, and saying that if you were doing it today, you would need to do it 
with hand written assembly, and you suggested that a process mock style 
approach would be awesome, which was one of the approaches I described in my 
original email.

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Zachary Turner  wrote:
> 
> 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 Jason Molenda  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > 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:
> >> >
> >> > I don't think we'd necessarily need a live register context or stack 
> >> > memory.  A mock register context and stack memory should be sufficient, 
> >> > with an emulator that understands only a handful of instructions.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's ... exactly what I said?  That we need to mock up memory and 
> >> registers and symbols, or have a corefile and binary, or have hand written 
> >> assembly routines that set up a particular stack and an SB API test that 
> >> tries to backtrace out of it with a live process.  After the inferior 
> >> process state has been constructed/reconstituted, is the unwinder capable 
> >> of walking the stack or finding spilled registers by following the correct 
> >> UnwindPlans.  This is right in the wheelhouse of SB API testing.
> >
> > I'm saying we shouldn't need a live process (and in fact we can test it 
> > better if we don't rely on a live process, since we can write tests that 
> > run anywhere).
> 
> 
> Yes, as we've all agreed many times for years, a ProcessMock style Process 
> plugin which can fake up state from a yaml file would be a great addition -- 
> and for the unwind tests, we need a way to provide symbolic information and 
> possibly even eh_frame information from the "binaries", and maybe even a way 
> to construct the yaml representation from an actual debug session.  No one is 
> disagreeing with this.
> 
> But the fact that no one has had time to develop this plugin means that if I 
> want to write an unwind test today, I either need to allocate time to write 
> the above infrastructure first, or write the test given the tools we have 
> available to us today.
> 
> An unwind test that only runs on x86_64, or even only runs on x86_64 Darwin, 
> is not ideal, but it is much better than no test at all especially in the 
> world of buildbots that can flag a problem with a change right away.
> 
> J

___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

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

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

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 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 don't think we'd necessarily need a live register context or stack
> memory.  A mock register context and stack memory should be sufficient,
> with an emulator that understands only a handful of instructions.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's ... exactly what I said?  That we need to mock up memory and
> registers and symbols, or have a corefile and binary, or have hand written
> assembly routines that set up a particular stack and an SB API test that
> tries to backtrace out of it with a live process.  After the inferior
> process state has been constructed/reconstituted, is the unwinder capable
> of walking the stack or finding spilled registers by following the correct
> UnwindPlans.  This is right in the wheelhouse of SB API testing.
> >
> > I'm saying we shouldn't need a live process (and in fact we can test it
> better if we don't rely on a live process, since we can write tests that
> run anywhere).
>
>
> Yes, as we've all agreed many times for years, a ProcessMock style Process
> plugin which can fake up state from a yaml file would be a great addition
> -- and for the unwind tests, we need a way to provide symbolic information
> and possibly even eh_frame information from the "binaries", and maybe even
> a way to construct the yaml representation from an actual debug session.
> No one is disagreeing with this.
>
> But the fact that no one has had time to develop this plugin means that if
> I want to write an unwind test today, I either need to allocate time to
> write the above infrastructure first, or write the test given the tools we
> have available to us today.
>
> An unwind test that only runs on x86_64, or even only runs on x86_64
> Darwin, is not ideal, but it is much better than no test at all especially
> in the world of buildbots that can flag a problem with a change right away.
>
> J
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

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

[Jason Molenda via lldb-commits]

> 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 added a comment.
>> >
>> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1005513, @jasonmolenda wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't think we'd necessarily need a live register context or stack 
>> > memory.  A mock register context and stack memory should be sufficient, 
>> > with an emulator that understands only a handful of instructions.
>> 
>> 
>> That's ... exactly what I said?  That we need to mock up memory and 
>> registers and symbols, or have a corefile and binary, or have hand written 
>> assembly routines that set up a particular stack and an SB API test that 
>> tries to backtrace out of it with a live process.  After the inferior 
>> process state has been constructed/reconstituted, is the unwinder capable of 
>> walking the stack or finding spilled registers by following the correct 
>> UnwindPlans.  This is right in the wheelhouse of SB API testing.
> 
> I'm saying we shouldn't need a live process (and in fact we can test it 
> better if we don't rely on a live process, since we can write tests that run 
> anywhere).


Yes, as we've all agreed many times for years, a ProcessMock style Process 
plugin which can fake up state from a yaml file would be a great addition -- 
and for the unwind tests, we need a way to provide symbolic information and 
possibly even eh_frame information from the "binaries", and maybe even a way to 
construct the yaml representation from an actual debug session.  No one is 
disagreeing with this.

But the fact that no one has had time to develop this plugin means that if I 
want to write an unwind test today, I either need to allocate time to write the 
above infrastructure first, or write the test given the tools we have available 
to us today.  

An unwind test that only runs on x86_64, or even only runs on x86_64 Darwin, is 
not ideal, but it is much better than no test at all especially in the world of 
buildbots that can flag a problem with a change right away.

J
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

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

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

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 don't think we'd necessarily need a live register context or stack
> memory.  A mock register context and stack memory should be sufficient,
> with an emulator that understands only a handful of instructions.
>
>
> That's ... exactly what I said?  That we need to mock up memory and
> registers and symbols, or have a corefile and binary, or have hand written
> assembly routines that set up a particular stack and an SB API test that
> tries to backtrace out of it with a live process.  After the inferior
> process state has been constructed/reconstituted, is the unwinder capable
> of walking the stack or finding spilled registers by following the correct
> UnwindPlans.  This is right in the wheelhouse of SB API testing.
>

I'm saying we shouldn't need a live process (and in fact we can test it
better if we don't rely on a live process, since we can write tests that
run anywhere).
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

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

[Jason Molenda via lldb-commits]

> 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 are testing the conversion of native unwind formats -- for instance, 
>> eh_frame, compact unwind, or instruction analysis -- into the intermediate 
>> UnwindPlan representation in lldb.  They are runtime invariant, unit tests 
>> are the best approach to these.  If there were anything to say about these, 
>> it would be that we need more testing here - armv7 (AArch32) into UnwindPlan 
>> is not tested.  eh_frame and compact_unwind into UnwindPlan is not tested.
> 
> 
> That's exactly the type of thing that FileCheck tests work best for.  I'm not 
> sure why you're saying that unittests are better than FileCheck tests for 
> this scenario.


I'm saying that the unittests here are entirely appropriate, and that rewriting 
existing tests in FileCheck style doesn't make any sense to me.  If people want 
to write new tests using that style, that's fine I guess, but I wrote these 
tests for a part of lldb that I maintain and I'd prefer to keep them as-is.


> 
>> The part of unwind that is difficult to test is the runtime unwind behavior, 
>> and FileCheck style tests don't make that easier in any way.  We need a live 
>> register context, stack memory, symbols and UnwindPlans to test this 
>> correctly -- we either need a full ProcessMock with SymbolVendorMock etc, or 
>> we need corefiles, or we need tests with hand-written assembly code.
> 
> I don't think we'd necessarily need a live register context or stack memory.  
> A mock register context and stack memory should be sufficient, with an 
> emulator that understands only a handful of instructions.


That's ... exactly what I said?  That we need to mock up memory and registers 
and symbols, or have a corefile and binary, or have hand written assembly 
routines that set up a particular stack and an SB API test that tries to 
backtrace out of it with a live process.  After the inferior process state has 
been constructed/reconstituted, is the unwinder capable of walking the stack or 
finding spilled registers by following the correct UnwindPlans.  This is right 
in the wheelhouse of SB API testing.

J
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

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

[Davide Italiano via lldb-commits]

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
> like to investigate this.
>
> -- adrian


Adrian,
I think I reported this issue a while ago, but I haven't checked whether it
still reproduces.
You might take a look at the original bug if you get a chance

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35037

Thanks!

--
Davide
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

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

[Adrian Prantl via lldb-commits]

> 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
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

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

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

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 Failure-whatever.log, take the last
> line, add a -d to it, and run it.  It suspends itself, then you attach to
> the Python instance with the debugger.
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048
>
>
>
>
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

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

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

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 Zachary Turner  wrote:

> 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 current python test there’s 4-6 lines of Python boilerplate for
> every 2-3 lines of test “meat”.  And it’s all code, making matters even
> worse.
>
> A FileCheck test will have approximately 0 lines of text that aren’t part
> of the “meat” of the test, and on top of that it can poke at every low
> level detail of a system, not just those that are blessed with an api
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:29 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator <
> revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> jingham requested changes to this revision.
>> jingham added a comment.
>> This revision now requires changes to proceed.
>>
>> You do care about the common match string.  When the lldb driver handles
>> completion, if the common match string is not null, we append that to the
>> line at the cursor position, then present the matches if there is more than
>> one.  So the common match string also has to be tested.
>>
>> The ability to page the completion requests in the API would be useful
>> for instance in symbol completion where you can get lots of matches, but if
>> you only plan to display the first page you'd rather not pay the cost to go
>> find them all.  I put that in the SB API's because I didn't want to have to
>> add another one when I got around to implementing this.  When I get around
>> to this I'll fix the docs...  But you could remove that from the lldb
>> private version if you're so motivated.  I'll still remember I intended to
>> extend it this way, even if nobody else will see that.
>>
>> We can't return a std::pair across the SB API's, but we could make the
>> common match be another parameter.  There was some reason this seemed
>> logical to me at the time, but I must admit I can't remember why now.  It
>> is in practice easy to use, however.  You append element 0 to the cursor
>> position, then print the rest of the completions if num_matches is > 1.
>> Again, feel free to switch the lldb_private API if it bugs you.
>>
>> An additional test in the Python testsuite is:
>>
>>   def test_target_create_dash_co(self):
>>   """Test that 'target create --co' completes to 'target variable
>> --core '."""
>>   self.complete_from_to('target create --co', 'target create --core ')
>>
>> So I still don't see why the file check method is preferable.  But to
>> each his own, I guess.
>>
>>
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048
>>
>>
>>
>>
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

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

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

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 current python test there’s 4-6 lines of Python boilerplate for
every 2-3 lines of test “meat”.  And it’s all code, making matters even
worse.

A FileCheck test will have approximately 0 lines of text that aren’t part
of the “meat” of the test, and on top of that it can poke at every low
level detail of a system, not just those that are blessed with an api

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:29 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> jingham requested changes to this revision.
> jingham added a comment.
> This revision now requires changes to proceed.
>
> You do care about the common match string.  When the lldb driver handles
> completion, if the common match string is not null, we append that to the
> line at the cursor position, then present the matches if there is more than
> one.  So the common match string also has to be tested.
>
> The ability to page the completion requests in the API would be useful for
> instance in symbol completion where you can get lots of matches, but if you
> only plan to display the first page you'd rather not pay the cost to go
> find them all.  I put that in the SB API's because I didn't want to have to
> add another one when I got around to implementing this.  When I get around
> to this I'll fix the docs...  But you could remove that from the lldb
> private version if you're so motivated.  I'll still remember I intended to
> extend it this way, even if nobody else will see that.
>
> We can't return a std::pair across the SB API's, but we could make the
> common match be another parameter.  There was some reason this seemed
> logical to me at the time, but I must admit I can't remember why now.  It
> is in practice easy to use, however.  You append element 0 to the cursor
> position, then print the rest of the completions if num_matches is > 1.
> Again, feel free to switch the lldb_private API if it bugs you.
>
> An additional test in the Python testsuite is:
>
>   def test_target_create_dash_co(self):
>   """Test that 'target create --co' completes to 'target variable
> --core '."""
>   self.complete_from_to('target create --co', 'target create --core ')
>
> So I still don't see why the file check method is preferable.  But to each
> his own, I guess.
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048
>
>
>
>
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits