2019 19:48, Ted Woodward wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -Original Message-
> >>>> From: lldb-dev On Behalf Of Pavel
> >>>> Labath
> >>>> via lldb-dev
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:35 AM
: LLDB
Subject: [EXT] Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
On 21/02/2019 00:03, Davide Italiano wrote:
I found out that there are tests that effectively require
interactivity. Some of the lldb-mi ones are an example.
A common use-case is that of sending SIGTERM in a loop to make sure
`lldb-mi
>> On 21/02/2019 19:48, Ted Woodward wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: lldb-dev On Behalf Of Pavel
>>>>>>>> Labath
>>>>&g
-Original Message-
> >>>>>> From: lldb-dev On Behalf Of Pavel
> >>>>>> Labath
> >>>>>> via lldb-dev
> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:35 AM
> >>>>>> To: Davide Italiano
>
>>>
> >>>> -Original Message-
> >>>> From: lldb-dev On Behalf Of Pavel
> >>>> Labath
> >>>> via lldb-dev
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:35 AM
> >>>> To: Davide Italiano
te:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/02/2019 19:48, Ted Woodward wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: lldb-dev On Behalf Of Pavel
>>>>>> Labath
>>>>
On Behalf Of Pavel Labath
>>>> via lldb-dev
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:35 AM
>>>> To: Davide Italiano
>>>> Cc: LLDB
>>>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
>>>>
>>>> On 21/
, 2019 8:35 AM
> >> To: Davide Italiano
> >> Cc: LLDB
> >> Subject: [EXT] Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
> >>
> >> On 21/02/2019 00:03, Davide Italiano wrote:
> >>> I found out that there are tests that effectively require
> >&g
On 21/02/2019 19:48, Ted Woodward wrote:
-Original Message-
From: lldb-dev On Behalf Of Pavel Labath
via lldb-dev
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:35 AM
To: Davide Italiano
Cc: LLDB
Subject: [EXT] Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
On 21/02/2019 00:03, Davide Italiano
> -Original Message-
> From: lldb-dev On Behalf Of Pavel Labath
> via lldb-dev
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:35 AM
> To: Davide Italiano
> Cc: LLDB
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
>
> On 21/02/2019 00:03, Davide Ital
On 21/02/2019 15:35, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev wrote:
So we may not even be able to get away with just using the system one
and skipping tests when it's not present.
s/may not/may/
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
On 21/02/2019 00:03, Davide Italiano wrote:
I found out that there are tests that effectively require
interactivity. Some of the lldb-mi ones are an example.
A common use-case is that of sending SIGTERM in a loop to make sure
`lldb-mi` doesn't crash and handle the signal correctly.
This
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:40 AM Pavel Labath wrote:
>
> On 31/01/2019 19:51, Zachary Turner wrote:
> > FileCheck the ansi escape codes seems like one possibility.
> >
> > In general I think you don't actually need to test true interactivity,
> > because the odds of there being a problem in
On 31/01/2019 20:52, Zachary Turner wrote:
It's worth mentioning that pexpect is basically unusable on Windows, so
there's still that.
Our interactive command line is basically unusable on windows, so there
isn't anything to test anyway.
I expect (pun intended) that getting a working
It's worth mentioning that pexpect is basically unusable on Windows, so
there's still that.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:40 AM Pavel Labath wrote:
> On 31/01/2019 19:51, Zachary Turner wrote:
> > FileCheck the ansi escape codes seems like one possibility.
> >
> > In general I think you don't
On 31/01/2019 19:51, Zachary Turner wrote:
> FileCheck the ansi escape codes seems like one possibility.
>
> In general I think you don't actually need to test true interactivity,
> because the odds of there being a problem in the 2-3 lines of code that
> convert the keyboard press to something
> On Jan 31, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
> wrote:
>
> On 31/01/2019 19:26, Zachary Turner wrote:
>> Was the test failing specifically in the keyboard handler for up arrow, or
>> was it failing in the command history searching code? Because if it's the
>> latter, then we
FileCheck the ansi escape codes seems like one possibility.
In general I think you don't actually need to test true interactivity,
because the odds of there being a problem in the 2-3 lines of code that
convert the keyboard press to something else in LLDB are very unlikely to
be problematic, and
On 31/01/2019 19:26, Zachary Turner wrote:
Was the test failing specifically in the keyboard handler for up arrow,
or was it failing in the command history searching code? Because if
it's the latter, then we could have a command which searches the command
history.
The patch is r351313, if
I don't think anybody uses these tests. They are all time based benchmarks,
and in the end there was just too much variability for them to be really
useful. We really need to do more work tracking performance, but I think a
better approach is to focus on how much work we do (how many DIE's
Even if it was the keyboard handler, lldb feeds characters to edit line through
the IO Handler, so it should be possible to emulate the up arrow as well. If
there are reasons why that's not feasible, we should be able to make it work.
This seems a tractable problem to me, and to me seems a
Was the test failing specifically in the keyboard handler for up arrow, or
was it failing in the command history searching code? Because if it's the
latter, then we could have a command which searches the command history.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:23 AM Davide Italiano via lldb-dev <
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:09 AM Pavel Labath wrote:
>
> On 31/01/2019 02:32, Davide Italiano via lldb-dev wrote:
> > As you probably know (I didn’t), lldb embeds its own version of
> > `pexpect-2.4`, which doesn’t support python3.
> > This is the (relatively short) list of tests relying on
On 31/01/2019 02:32, Davide Italiano via lldb-dev wrote:
As you probably know (I didn’t), lldb embeds its own version of
`pexpect-2.4`, which doesn’t support python3.
This is the (relatively short) list of tests relying on pyexpect:
testcases/tools/lldb-mi/syntax/TestMiSyntax.py:import
This would be great. All of these tests have always been disabled on
Windows so converting them to lit tests would increase test coverage there
as well
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:00 PM Alex Langford via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. I'd like to
+1
Thanks for bringing this up. I'd like to see this happen!
- Alex
On 1/30/19, 5:33 PM, "lldb-dev on behalf of Davide Italiano via lldb-dev"
wrote:
As you probably know (I didn’t), lldb embeds its own version of
`pexpect-2.4`, which doesn’t support python3.
This is the
As you probably know (I didn’t), lldb embeds its own version of
`pexpect-2.4`, which doesn’t support python3.
This is the (relatively short) list of tests relying on pyexpect:
testcases/tools/lldb-mi/syntax/TestMiSyntax.py:import pexpect
# 7 (EOF)
27 matches
Mail list logo
