Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
After discussing this privately with Pavel we decided to try updating pexpect instead. On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:42 AM Pavel Labath wrote: > > On 25/02/2019 22:15, Davide Italiano wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:32 AM Pavel Labath wrote: > >> > >> 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 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 functionality is really hard to replicate in lit_as is_. > >>>>> Any ideas on how we could handle this case? > >>>> > >>>> How hard is it to import a new version of pexpect which supports python3 > >>>> and > >>>> stuff? > >>>> > >>>> I'm not sure how the situation is on darwin, but I'd expect (:P) that > >>>> most linux > >>>> systems either already have it installed, or have an easy way to do so. > >>>> So we > >>>> may not even be able to get away with just using the system one and > >>>> skipping > >>>> tests when it's not present. > >>>> > >>>> BTW, for lldb-mi I would actually argue that it should *not* use pexpect > >>>> :D. > >>>> Interactivity is one thing, and I'm very much in favour of keeping that > >>>> ability, > >>>> but pexpect is not a prerequisite for that. For me, the main advantage of > >>>> pexpect is that it emulates a real terminal. However, lldb-mi does not > >>>> need > >>>> that stuff. It doesn't have any command line editing capabilities or > >>>> similar. It's > >>>> expecting to communicate with an IDE over a pipe, and that's it. > >>>> > >>>> Given that, it should be fairly easy to rewrite the lldb-mi tests to > >>>> work on top > >>>> of the standard python "subprocess" library. While we're doing that, we > >>>> might > >>>> actually fix some of the issues that have been bugging everyone in the > >>>> lldb-mi > >>>> tests. At least for me, the most annoying thing was that when lldb-mi > >>>> fails to > >>>> produce the expected output, the test does not fail immediately, but > >>>> instead > >>>> the implementation of self.expect("^whatever") waits until the timeout > >>>> expires, optimistically hoping that it will find some output that match > >>>> the > >>>> pattern. > >>>> > > > > Pavel, I think yours is a really nice idea. > > I'm no python expert, but I found out making the conversion is > > relatively simple. > > I propose a proof-of-concept API and implementation here: > > > > https://gist.github.com/dcci/94a4936a227d9c7627b91ae9575b7b68 > > > > Comments appreciated! Once we agree on how this should look like, I do > > recommend to have a new lldbMITest base class and incrementally start > > moving the tests to it. > > Once we're done, we can delete the old class. > > > > Does this sound reasonable? > > > > -- > > Davide > > > > Sounds great. Let's ship it. :) > > pl ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
On 25/02/2019 22:15, Davide Italiano wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:32 AM Pavel Labath wrote: 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 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 functionality is really hard to replicate in lit_as is_. Any ideas on how we could handle this case? How hard is it to import a new version of pexpect which supports python3 and stuff? I'm not sure how the situation is on darwin, but I'd expect (:P) that most linux systems either already have it installed, or have an easy way to do so. So we may not even be able to get away with just using the system one and skipping tests when it's not present. BTW, for lldb-mi I would actually argue that it should *not* use pexpect :D. Interactivity is one thing, and I'm very much in favour of keeping that ability, but pexpect is not a prerequisite for that. For me, the main advantage of pexpect is that it emulates a real terminal. However, lldb-mi does not need that stuff. It doesn't have any command line editing capabilities or similar. It's expecting to communicate with an IDE over a pipe, and that's it. Given that, it should be fairly easy to rewrite the lldb-mi tests to work on top of the standard python "subprocess" library. While we're doing that, we might actually fix some of the issues that have been bugging everyone in the lldb-mi tests. At least for me, the most annoying thing was that when lldb-mi fails to produce the expected output, the test does not fail immediately, but instead the implementation of self.expect("^whatever") waits until the timeout expires, optimistically hoping that it will find some output that match the pattern. Pavel, I think yours is a really nice idea. I'm no python expert, but I found out making the conversion is relatively simple. I propose a proof-of-concept API and implementation here: https://gist.github.com/dcci/94a4936a227d9c7627b91ae9575b7b68 Comments appreciated! Once we agree on how this should look like, I do recommend to have a new lldbMITest base class and incrementally start moving the tests to it. Once we're done, we can delete the old class. Does this sound reasonable? -- Davide Sounds great. Let's ship it. :) pl ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
> On Feb 25, 2019, at 2:21 PM, Davide Italiano wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:57 PM Adrian Prantl wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Davide Italiano wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:35 PM Adrian Prantl wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:15 PM, Davide Italiano >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:32 AM Pavel Labath wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 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 functionality is really hard to replicate in lit_as is_. >>>>>>>>> Any ideas on how we could handle this case? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How hard is it to import a new version of pexpect which supports >>>>>>>> python3 and >>>>>>>> stuff? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure how the situation is on darwin, but I'd expect (:P) that >>>>>>>> most linux >>>>>>>> systems either already have it installed, or have an easy way to do >>>>>>>> so. So we >>>>>>>> may not even be able to get away with just using the system one and >>>>>>>> skipping >>>>>>>> tests when it's not present. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BTW, for lldb-mi I would actually argue that it should *not* use >>>>>>>> pexpect :D. >>>>>>>> Interactivity is one thing, and I'm very much in favour of keeping >>>>>>>> that ability, >>>>>>>> but pexpect is not a prerequisite for that. For me, the main advantage >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> pexpect is that it emulates a real terminal. However, lldb-mi does not >>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>> that stuff. It doesn't have any command line editing capabilities or >>>>>>>> similar. It's >>>>>>>> expecting to communicate with an IDE over a pipe, and that's it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Given that, it should be fairly easy to rewrite the lldb-mi tests to >>>>>>>> work on top >>>>>>>> of the standard python "subprocess" library. While we're doing that, >>>>>>>> we might >>>>>>>> actually fix some of the issues that have been bugging everyone in the >>>>>>>> lldb-mi >>>>>>>> tests. At least for me, the most annoying thing was that when lldb-mi >>>>>>>> fails to >>>>>>>> produce the expected output, the test does not fail immediately, but >>>>>>>> instead >>>>>>>> the implementation of self.expect("^whatever") waits until the timeout >>>>>>>> expires, optimistically hoping that it will find some output that >>>>>>>> match the >>>>>>>> pattern. >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pavel, I think yours is a really nice idea. >>>>> I'm no python expert, but I found out making the conversion is >>>>> relatively simple. >>>>> I propose a proof-of-concept API and implementation here: >>>>> >>>>> https://gist.github.com/dcci/94a4936a227d9c7627b91a
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:57 PM Adrian Prantl wrote: > > > > > On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Davide Italiano wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:35 PM Adrian Prantl wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:15 PM, Davide Italiano > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:32 AM Pavel Labath wrote: > >>>> > >>>> 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 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 functionality is really hard to replicate in lit_as is_. > >>>>>>> Any ideas on how we could handle this case? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How hard is it to import a new version of pexpect which supports > >>>>>> python3 and > >>>>>> stuff? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure how the situation is on darwin, but I'd expect (:P) that > >>>>>> most linux > >>>>>> systems either already have it installed, or have an easy way to do > >>>>>> so. So we > >>>>>> may not even be able to get away with just using the system one and > >>>>>> skipping > >>>>>> tests when it's not present. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> BTW, for lldb-mi I would actually argue that it should *not* use > >>>>>> pexpect :D. > >>>>>> Interactivity is one thing, and I'm very much in favour of keeping > >>>>>> that ability, > >>>>>> but pexpect is not a prerequisite for that. For me, the main advantage > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> pexpect is that it emulates a real terminal. However, lldb-mi does not > >>>>>> need > >>>>>> that stuff. It doesn't have any command line editing capabilities or > >>>>>> similar. It's > >>>>>> expecting to communicate with an IDE over a pipe, and that's it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Given that, it should be fairly easy to rewrite the lldb-mi tests to > >>>>>> work on top > >>>>>> of the standard python "subprocess" library. While we're doing that, > >>>>>> we might > >>>>>> actually fix some of the issues that have been bugging everyone in the > >>>>>> lldb-mi > >>>>>> tests. At least for me, the most annoying thing was that when lldb-mi > >>>>>> fails to > >>>>>> produce the expected output, the test does not fail immediately, but > >>>>>> instead > >>>>>> the implementation of self.expect("^whatever") waits until the timeout > >>>>>> expires, optimistically hoping that it will find some output that > >>>>>> match the > >>>>>> pattern. > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> Pavel, I think yours is a really nice idea. > >>> I'm no python expert, but I found out making the conversion is > >>> relatively simple. > >>> I propose a proof-of-concept API and implementation here: > >>> > >>> https://gist.github.com/dcci/94a4936a227d9c7627b91ae9575b7b68 > >>> > >>> Comments appreciated! Once we agree on how this should look like, I do > >>> recommend to have a new lldbMITest base class and incrementally start > >>> moving the tests to it. > >>> Once we're done, we can delete the old class. > >>> > &
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:35 PM Adrian Prantl wrote: > > > > > On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:15 PM, Davide Italiano wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:32 AM Pavel Labath wrote: > >> > >> 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 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 functionality is really hard to replicate in lit_as is_. > >>>>> Any ideas on how we could handle this case? > >>>> > >>>> How hard is it to import a new version of pexpect which supports python3 > >>>> and > >>>> stuff? > >>>> > >>>> I'm not sure how the situation is on darwin, but I'd expect (:P) that > >>>> most linux > >>>> systems either already have it installed, or have an easy way to do so. > >>>> So we > >>>> may not even be able to get away with just using the system one and > >>>> skipping > >>>> tests when it's not present. > >>>> > >>>> BTW, for lldb-mi I would actually argue that it should *not* use pexpect > >>>> :D. > >>>> Interactivity is one thing, and I'm very much in favour of keeping that > >>>> ability, > >>>> but pexpect is not a prerequisite for that. For me, the main advantage of > >>>> pexpect is that it emulates a real terminal. However, lldb-mi does not > >>>> need > >>>> that stuff. It doesn't have any command line editing capabilities or > >>>> similar. It's > >>>> expecting to communicate with an IDE over a pipe, and that's it. > >>>> > >>>> Given that, it should be fairly easy to rewrite the lldb-mi tests to > >>>> work on top > >>>> of the standard python "subprocess" library. While we're doing that, we > >>>> might > >>>> actually fix some of the issues that have been bugging everyone in the > >>>> lldb-mi > >>>> tests. At least for me, the most annoying thing was that when lldb-mi > >>>> fails to > >>>> produce the expected output, the test does not fail immediately, but > >>>> instead > >>>> the implementation of self.expect("^whatever") waits until the timeout > >>>> expires, optimistically hoping that it will find some output that match > >>>> the > >>>> pattern. > >>>> > > > > Pavel, I think yours is a really nice idea. > > I'm no python expert, but I found out making the conversion is > > relatively simple. > > I propose a proof-of-concept API and implementation here: > > > > https://gist.github.com/dcci/94a4936a227d9c7627b91ae9575b7b68 > > > > Comments appreciated! Once we agree on how this should look like, I do > > recommend to have a new lldbMITest base class and incrementally start > > moving the tests to it. > > Once we're done, we can delete the old class. > > > > Does this sound reasonable? > > What you are saying is that we would write the tests as Python tests in a way > similar to how lldbtest.expect() look in the dotest.py tests, banking on > synchronous mode taking care of all the synchronization? Are you thinking of > doing this for all the remaining tests or only the ones where a command input > depends on the result of a previous command? > I'm thinking to do this for all the remaining tests. Do you have any concerns about this? (I'm aware your GSoC student introduced the `lit lldb-mi` tests for a reason, I just don't know exactly what the reason was). ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Davide Italiano wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:35 PM Adrian Prantl wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:15 PM, Davide Italiano wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:32 AM Pavel Labath wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 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 functionality is really hard to replicate in lit_as is_. >>>>>>> Any ideas on how we could handle this case? >>>>>> >>>>>> How hard is it to import a new version of pexpect which supports python3 >>>>>> and >>>>>> stuff? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure how the situation is on darwin, but I'd expect (:P) that >>>>>> most linux >>>>>> systems either already have it installed, or have an easy way to do so. >>>>>> So we >>>>>> may not even be able to get away with just using the system one and >>>>>> skipping >>>>>> tests when it's not present. >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, for lldb-mi I would actually argue that it should *not* use pexpect >>>>>> :D. >>>>>> Interactivity is one thing, and I'm very much in favour of keeping that >>>>>> ability, >>>>>> but pexpect is not a prerequisite for that. For me, the main advantage of >>>>>> pexpect is that it emulates a real terminal. However, lldb-mi does not >>>>>> need >>>>>> that stuff. It doesn't have any command line editing capabilities or >>>>>> similar. It's >>>>>> expecting to communicate with an IDE over a pipe, and that's it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given that, it should be fairly easy to rewrite the lldb-mi tests to >>>>>> work on top >>>>>> of the standard python "subprocess" library. While we're doing that, we >>>>>> might >>>>>> actually fix some of the issues that have been bugging everyone in the >>>>>> lldb-mi >>>>>> tests. At least for me, the most annoying thing was that when lldb-mi >>>>>> fails to >>>>>> produce the expected output, the test does not fail immediately, but >>>>>> instead >>>>>> the implementation of self.expect("^whatever") waits until the timeout >>>>>> expires, optimistically hoping that it will find some output that match >>>>>> the >>>>>> pattern. >>>>>> >>> >>> Pavel, I think yours is a really nice idea. >>> I'm no python expert, but I found out making the conversion is >>> relatively simple. >>> I propose a proof-of-concept API and implementation here: >>> >>> https://gist.github.com/dcci/94a4936a227d9c7627b91ae9575b7b68 >>> >>> Comments appreciated! Once we agree on how this should look like, I do >>> recommend to have a new lldbMITest base class and incrementally start >>> moving the tests to it. >>> Once we're done, we can delete the old class. >>> >>> Does this sound reasonable? >> >> What you are saying is that we would write the tests as Python tests in a >> way similar to how lldbtest.expect() look in the dotest.py tests, banking on >> synchronous mode taking care of all the synchronization? Are you thinking of >> doing this for all the remaining tests or only the ones where a command >> input depends on the result of a previous command? >> > > I'm thinking to do this for all the remaining tests. Do you have any > concerns about this? (I'm aware your GSoC student introduced the `lit > lldb-mi` tests for a reason, I just don't know exactly what the reason > was). I think the reason was that for tests that don't need synchronization and have a static command input, writing a lit/FileCheck test is straightforward and easy. At the time I thought we could just rewrite *all* lldb-mi tests as FileCheck tests. If we do need a python mechanism anyway, however, I don't actually think that having two ways of writing tests is better; I'd rather have all tests in one place. Thankfully there shouldn't be that many tests, so we should be able to just convert all of them over to whatever format we eventually settle on. -- adrian ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:15 PM, Davide Italiano wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:32 AM Pavel Labath wrote: >> >> 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 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 functionality is really hard to replicate in lit_as is_. >>>>> Any ideas on how we could handle this case? >>>> >>>> How hard is it to import a new version of pexpect which supports python3 >>>> and >>>> stuff? >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how the situation is on darwin, but I'd expect (:P) that most >>>> linux >>>> systems either already have it installed, or have an easy way to do so. So >>>> we >>>> may not even be able to get away with just using the system one and >>>> skipping >>>> tests when it's not present. >>>> >>>> BTW, for lldb-mi I would actually argue that it should *not* use pexpect >>>> :D. >>>> Interactivity is one thing, and I'm very much in favour of keeping that >>>> ability, >>>> but pexpect is not a prerequisite for that. For me, the main advantage of >>>> pexpect is that it emulates a real terminal. However, lldb-mi does not need >>>> that stuff. It doesn't have any command line editing capabilities or >>>> similar. It's >>>> expecting to communicate with an IDE over a pipe, and that's it. >>>> >>>> Given that, it should be fairly easy to rewrite the lldb-mi tests to work >>>> on top >>>> of the standard python "subprocess" library. While we're doing that, we >>>> might >>>> actually fix some of the issues that have been bugging everyone in the >>>> lldb-mi >>>> tests. At least for me, the most annoying thing was that when lldb-mi >>>> fails to >>>> produce the expected output, the test does not fail immediately, but >>>> instead >>>> the implementation of self.expect("^whatever") waits until the timeout >>>> expires, optimistically hoping that it will find some output that match the >>>> pattern. >>>> > > Pavel, I think yours is a really nice idea. > I'm no python expert, but I found out making the conversion is > relatively simple. > I propose a proof-of-concept API and implementation here: > > https://gist.github.com/dcci/94a4936a227d9c7627b91ae9575b7b68 > > Comments appreciated! Once we agree on how this should look like, I do > recommend to have a new lldbMITest base class and incrementally start > moving the tests to it. > Once we're done, we can delete the old class. > > Does this sound reasonable? What you are saying is that we would write the tests as Python tests in a way similar to how lldbtest.expect() look in the dotest.py tests, banking on synchronous mode taking care of all the synchronization? Are you thinking of doing this for all the remaining tests or only the ones where a command input depends on the result of a previous command? -- adrian ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:32 AM Pavel Labath wrote: > > 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 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 functionality is really hard to replicate in lit_as is_. > >>> Any ideas on how we could handle this case? > >> > >> How hard is it to import a new version of pexpect which supports python3 > >> and > >> stuff? > >> > >> I'm not sure how the situation is on darwin, but I'd expect (:P) that most > >> linux > >> systems either already have it installed, or have an easy way to do so. So > >> we > >> may not even be able to get away with just using the system one and > >> skipping > >> tests when it's not present. > >> > >> BTW, for lldb-mi I would actually argue that it should *not* use pexpect > >> :D. > >> Interactivity is one thing, and I'm very much in favour of keeping that > >> ability, > >> but pexpect is not a prerequisite for that. For me, the main advantage of > >> pexpect is that it emulates a real terminal. However, lldb-mi does not need > >> that stuff. It doesn't have any command line editing capabilities or > >> similar. It's > >> expecting to communicate with an IDE over a pipe, and that's it. > >> > >> Given that, it should be fairly easy to rewrite the lldb-mi tests to work > >> on top > >> of the standard python "subprocess" library. While we're doing that, we > >> might > >> actually fix some of the issues that have been bugging everyone in the > >> lldb-mi > >> tests. At least for me, the most annoying thing was that when lldb-mi > >> fails to > >> produce the expected output, the test does not fail immediately, but > >> instead > >> the implementation of self.expect("^whatever") waits until the timeout > >> expires, optimistically hoping that it will find some output that match the > >> pattern. > >> Pavel, I think yours is a really nice idea. I'm no python expert, but I found out making the conversion is relatively simple. I propose a proof-of-concept API and implementation here: https://gist.github.com/dcci/94a4936a227d9c7627b91ae9575b7b68 Comments appreciated! Once we agree on how this should look like, I do recommend to have a new lldbMITest base class and incrementally start moving the tests to it. Once we're done, we can delete the old class. Does this sound reasonable? -- Davide ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 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 functionality is really hard to replicate in lit_as is_. Any ideas on how we could handle this case? How hard is it to import a new version of pexpect which supports python3 and stuff? I'm not sure how the situation is on darwin, but I'd expect (:P) that most linux systems either already have it installed, or have an easy way to do so. So we may not even be able to get away with just using the system one and skipping tests when it's not present. BTW, for lldb-mi I would actually argue that it should *not* use pexpect :D. Interactivity is one thing, and I'm very much in favour of keeping that ability, but pexpect is not a prerequisite for that. For me, the main advantage of pexpect is that it emulates a real terminal. However, lldb-mi does not need that stuff. It doesn't have any command line editing capabilities or similar. It's expecting to communicate with an IDE over a pipe, and that's it. Given that, it should be fairly easy to rewrite the lldb-mi tests to work on top of the standard python "subprocess" library. While we're doing that, we might actually fix some of the issues that have been bugging everyone in the lldb-mi tests. At least for me, the most annoying thing was that when lldb-mi fails to produce the expected output, the test does not fail immediately, but instead the implementation of self.expect("^whatever") waits until the timeout expires, optimistically hoping that it will find some output that match the pattern. If we change this to something like self.expect_reply("^whatever"), and make the "expect_reply" function smart enough to know that lldb-mi's response should come as a single line, and if the first line doesn't match, it should abort, this problem would be fixed. While we're at it, we could also tune the failure message so that it's more helpful than the current implementation. Plus, that would solve the issue of not being able to run lldb-mi tests on windows. This would be OK, I think, as long as "expect_reply" has the option to do a partial match, or a regex match. Some of the lldb-mi tests only look for certain parts of the reply. Yes, except from the difference in treating "messages" independently, the function could/should have the same matching capabilities as the current one. I do see an opportunity to improve this to do some kind of structure-aware matching (expect_reply("library-loaded", target_name="foo.so", loaded_addr=0x47000)). IMO, that would make these tests superior even to the current lit tests, but I'm not an lldb-mi developer, so I'll probably stop short of doing that. :) Also, until Python2 is declared dead and not supported at all by lldb, we should be able to run this under 2 or 3. Yes, of course. ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
> -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 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 functionality is really hard to replicate in lit_as is_. > > Any ideas on how we could handle this case? > > How hard is it to import a new version of pexpect which supports python3 and > stuff? > > I'm not sure how the situation is on darwin, but I'd expect (:P) that most > linux > systems either already have it installed, or have an easy way to do so. So we > may not even be able to get away with just using the system one and skipping > tests when it's not present. > > BTW, for lldb-mi I would actually argue that it should *not* use pexpect :D. > Interactivity is one thing, and I'm very much in favour of keeping that > ability, > but pexpect is not a prerequisite for that. For me, the main advantage of > pexpect is that it emulates a real terminal. However, lldb-mi does not need > that stuff. It doesn't have any command line editing capabilities or similar. > It's > expecting to communicate with an IDE over a pipe, and that's it. > > Given that, it should be fairly easy to rewrite the lldb-mi tests to work on > top > of the standard python "subprocess" library. While we're doing that, we might > actually fix some of the issues that have been bugging everyone in the lldb-mi > tests. At least for me, the most annoying thing was that when lldb-mi fails to > produce the expected output, the test does not fail immediately, but instead > the implementation of self.expect("^whatever") waits until the timeout > expires, optimistically hoping that it will find some output that match the > pattern. > > If we change this to something like self.expect_reply("^whatever"), and make > the "expect_reply" function smart enough to know that lldb-mi's response > should come as a single line, and if the first line doesn't match, it should > abort, > this problem would be fixed. While we're at it, we could also tune the failure > message so that it's more helpful than the current implementation. Plus, that > would solve the issue of not being able to run lldb-mi tests on windows. This would be OK, I think, as long as "expect_reply" has the option to do a partial match, or a regex match. Some of the lldb-mi tests only look for certain parts of the reply. Also, until Python2 is declared dead and not supported at all by lldb, we should be able to run this under 2 or 3. > Anyway, that's what I'd do. I was actually planning to look into that soon, > but > then I roped myself into writing a yaml (de)serialization tool for minidumps, > so > I have no idea when I will get back to that. I hope some of this is helpful > nonetheless. > > cheers, > pavel > ___ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
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` doesn't crash and handle the signal correctly. This functionality is really hard to replicate in lit_as is_. Any ideas on how we could handle this case? How hard is it to import a new version of pexpect which supports python3 and stuff? I'm not sure how the situation is on darwin, but I'd expect (:P) that most linux systems either already have it installed, or have an easy way to do so. So we may not even be able to get away with just using the system one and skipping tests when it's not present. BTW, for lldb-mi I would actually argue that it should *not* use pexpect :D. Interactivity is one thing, and I'm very much in favour of keeping that ability, but pexpect is not a prerequisite for that. For me, the main advantage of pexpect is that it emulates a real terminal. However, lldb-mi does not need that stuff. It doesn't have any command line editing capabilities or similar. It's expecting to communicate with an IDE over a pipe, and that's it. Given that, it should be fairly easy to rewrite the lldb-mi tests to work on top of the standard python "subprocess" library. While we're doing that, we might actually fix some of the issues that have been bugging everyone in the lldb-mi tests. At least for me, the most annoying thing was that when lldb-mi fails to produce the expected output, the test does not fail immediately, but instead the implementation of self.expect("^whatever") waits until the timeout expires, optimistically hoping that it will find some output that match the pattern. If we change this to something like self.expect_reply("^whatever"), and make the "expect_reply" function smart enough to know that lldb-mi's response should come as a single line, and if the first line doesn't match, it should abort, this problem would be fixed. While we're at it, we could also tune the failure message so that it's more helpful than the current implementation. Plus, that would solve the issue of not being able to run lldb-mi tests on windows. Anyway, that's what I'd do. I was actually planning to look into that soon, but then I roped myself into writing a yaml (de)serialization tool for minidumps, so I have no idea when I will get back to that. I hope some of this is helpful nonetheless. cheers, pavel ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 the 2-3 lines of code that > > convert the keyboard press to something else in LLDB are very unlikely > > to be problematic, and the rest can be mocked. > > > On 31/01/2019 20:02, Jim Ingham wrote: > > All the traffic back and forth with the terminal happens in the > > IOHandlerEditLine. We should be able to get our hands on the Debuggers > > IOHandler and feed characters directly to it, and read the results. So we > > should be able to write this kind of test by driving the debugger to > > whatever state you need with SB API and then just run one command and get > > the output string directly from the IOHandler. We should be able to then > > scan that output for color codes. I don't think we need an external > > process inspection tool to do this sort of thing. > > > > > Libedit expect to work with a real terminal, so to test the code that > interacts with libedit (and there's more than 3 lines of that), you'll > need something that can create a pty, and read and write characters to > it, regardless of whether you drive the test through FileCheck or SB API. > > "creating a pty, and reading and writing to it" is pretty much the > definition of pexpect. > > I am not saying either of this approaches can't be made to work, but I > am not sure who is going to do it. I fear that we are shooting ourselves > in the foot banning pexpect and then pushing patches without tests > because "it's hard". > > Just for fun, I tried to write a test to check the coloring of the > prompt via pexpect. It was _literally_ three lines long: > > def test_colored_prompt_comes_out_right(self): > child = pexpect.spawn(lldbtest_config.lldbExec) > child.expect_exact("(lldb) \x1b[1G\x1b[2m(lldb) \x1b[22m\x1b[8G") > > > BTW: I am not proposing we spend heroic efforts trying to port pexpect > 2.4 to python3. But I would consider using a newer version of pexpect to > write tests ***where it makes sense to do so***. At least until someone > comes up with a better (and not vapourware) alternative... > > pl 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 functionality is really hard to replicate in lit _as is_. Any ideas on how we could handle this case? Thanks, -- Davide ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 pexpect on windows will be much easier than getting a working interactive command line. ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 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 the rest can be mocked. > > > On 31/01/2019 20:02, Jim Ingham wrote: > > All the traffic back and forth with the terminal happens in the > IOHandlerEditLine. We should be able to get our hands on the Debuggers > IOHandler and feed characters directly to it, and read the results. So we > should be able to write this kind of test by driving the debugger to > whatever state you need with SB API and then just run one command and get > the output string directly from the IOHandler. We should be able to then > scan that output for color codes. I don't think we need an external > process inspection tool to do this sort of thing. > > > > > Libedit expect to work with a real terminal, so to test the code that > interacts with libedit (and there's more than 3 lines of that), you'll > need something that can create a pty, and read and write characters to > it, regardless of whether you drive the test through FileCheck or SB API. > > "creating a pty, and reading and writing to it" is pretty much the > definition of pexpect. > > I am not saying either of this approaches can't be made to work, but I > am not sure who is going to do it. I fear that we are shooting ourselves > in the foot banning pexpect and then pushing patches without tests > because "it's hard". > > Just for fun, I tried to write a test to check the coloring of the > prompt via pexpect. It was _literally_ three lines long: > > def test_colored_prompt_comes_out_right(self): > child = pexpect.spawn(lldbtest_config.lldbExec) > child.expect_exact("(lldb) \x1b[1G\x1b[2m(lldb) \x1b[22m\x1b[8G") > > > BTW: I am not proposing we spend heroic efforts trying to port pexpect > 2.4 to python3. But I would consider using a newer version of pexpect to > write tests ***where it makes sense to do so***. At least until someone > comes up with a better (and not vapourware) alternative... > > pl > ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 else in LLDB are very unlikely > to be problematic, and the rest can be mocked. On 31/01/2019 20:02, Jim Ingham wrote: All the traffic back and forth with the terminal happens in the IOHandlerEditLine. We should be able to get our hands on the Debuggers IOHandler and feed characters directly to it, and read the results. So we should be able to write this kind of test by driving the debugger to whatever state you need with SB API and then just run one command and get the output string directly from the IOHandler. We should be able to then scan that output for color codes. I don't think we need an external process inspection tool to do this sort of thing. Libedit expect to work with a real terminal, so to test the code that interacts with libedit (and there's more than 3 lines of that), you'll need something that can create a pty, and read and write characters to it, regardless of whether you drive the test through FileCheck or SB API. "creating a pty, and reading and writing to it" is pretty much the definition of pexpect. I am not saying either of this approaches can't be made to work, but I am not sure who is going to do it. I fear that we are shooting ourselves in the foot banning pexpect and then pushing patches without tests because "it's hard". Just for fun, I tried to write a test to check the coloring of the prompt via pexpect. It was _literally_ three lines long: def test_colored_prompt_comes_out_right(self): child = pexpect.spawn(lldbtest_config.lldbExec) child.expect_exact("(lldb) \x1b[1G\x1b[2m(lldb) \x1b[22m\x1b[8G") BTW: I am not proposing we spend heroic efforts trying to port pexpect 2.4 to python3. But I would consider using a newer version of pexpect to write tests ***where it makes sense to do so***. At least until someone comes up with a better (and not vapourware) alternative... pl ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
> 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 could have a command which searches the command history. > > The patch is r351313, if you want to look at it in detail. But, I don't think > this one example matters too much, since we will always have some code which > deals with the interactivity of the terminal. That will need to be tested > somehow. > > Another example: we have a fairly complex piece of code that makes sure our > (lldb) prompt comes out in color. How do we write a test for that? All the traffic back and forth with the terminal happens in the IOHandlerEditLine. We should be able to get our hands on the Debuggers IOHandler and feed characters directly to it, and read the results. So we should be able to write this kind of test by driving the debugger to whatever state you need with SB API and then just run one command and get the output string directly from the IOHandler. We should be able to then scan that output for color codes. I don't think we need an external process inspection tool to do this sort of thing. Jim > ___ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 the rest can be mocked. On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:42 AM Pavel Labath 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 could have a command which searches the command > > history. > > > > The patch is r351313, if you want to look at it in detail. But, I don't > think this one example matters too much, since we will always have some > code which deals with the interactivity of the terminal. That will need > to be tested somehow. > > Another example: we have a fairly complex piece of code that makes sure > our (lldb) prompt comes out in color. How do we write a test for that? > ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 you want to look at it in detail. But, I don't think this one example matters too much, since we will always have some code which deals with the interactivity of the terminal. That will need to be tested somehow. Another example: we have a fairly complex piece of code that makes sure our (lldb) prompt comes out in color. How do we write a test for that? ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 did you have to parse to do X, how many lookups did it take to compile an expression, or how many memory requests did a task take, things like that. Those seem to me likely to be ore stable. That said, I'm unclear why any of the benchmark tests would need pexpect to function. The Driver used to have a lot more functionality in it that has since been moved into the SB API's. Maybe there was good reason for doing performance testing through the driver but I can't think of any good reason for doing that nowadays. Jim > On Jan 31, 2019, at 10:23 AM, Davide Italiano via lldb-dev > wrote: > > 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 pyexpect: >>> >>> testcases/tools/lldb-mi/syntax/TestMiSyntax.py:import pexpect >>> # 7 (EOF) >>> testcases/tools/lldb-mi/lldbmi_testcase.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/lldbtest.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/lldbpexpect.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/terminal/TestSTTYBeforeAndAfter.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/darwin_log.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/macosx/nslog/TestDarwinNSLogOutput.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/benchmarks/stepping/TestSteppingSpeed.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/benchmarks/frame_variable/TestFrameVariableResponse.py: >>> import pexpect >>> testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: >>>import pexpect >>> testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: >>>import pexpect >>> testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestExpressionCmd.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/benchmarks/startup/TestStartupDelays.py:import pexpect >>> testcases/functionalities/command_regex/TestCommandRegex.py: >>> import pexpect >>> testcases/functionalities/single-quote-in-filename-to-lldb/TestSingleQuoteInFilename.py: >>>import pexpect >>> testcases/functionalities/format/TestFormats.py:import pexpect >>> >>> (I count 14, but there might be something else). >>> >>> I audited all of them and from what I see they’re almost all testing the >>> driver. >>> I had a chat with my coworkers and we agreed it's reasonable to >>> replace them with lit tests (as they're just running commands). >>> This would allow us to get rid of an external dependency, which >>> happened to be cause of trouble in the past. >>> >>> Are there any objections? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >> >> I'm not a fan of pexpect, and if these tests can be converted to lit, >> then I'm all for it. But I do have a question. >> >> There is a class of tests that cannot be written in the current lit >> framework, but they can with pexpect. A couple of weeks ago we had a >> patch fixing a bug where pressing up arrow while searching through the >> command history caused a crash. In the end a test for this was not >> included because it was hard for a reason unrelated to pexpect, but >> without pexpect (or something equivalent) writing a test for this would >> be impossible. >> > > I don't know about this, to be honest. Maybe lit should grow an > interactive mode somehow to accomodate for this functionality? > I'm not an expert in how it's implemented so that could be hard to achieve. > FWIW, I haven't seen anything that really requires interactivity, but > I have to admit I haven't looked really deeply. > >> What's our story for testing interactive command-line functionalities? >> The way I see it, if we don't use pexpect, we'll either have to use some >> other tool which simulates a realistic terminal, or write our own. (We >> already have one attempt for this in >> unittests/Editline/EditlineTest.cpp, but this would need more work to be >> fully functional.) >> >> pl >> >> >> PS: Does anyone actually use the benchmark tests? Can we just delete them? > > I don't know. Maybe Jim knows. I personally
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 better place to put effort than something like pexpect. Jim > On Jan 31, 2019, at 10:26 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev > 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. > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:23 AM Davide Italiano via lldb-dev > wrote: > 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 pyexpect: > > > > > > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/syntax/TestMiSyntax.py:import pexpect > > > # 7 (EOF) > > > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/lldbmi_testcase.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/lldbtest.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/lldbpexpect.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/terminal/TestSTTYBeforeAndAfter.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/darwin_log.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/macosx/nslog/TestDarwinNSLogOutput.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/stepping/TestSteppingSpeed.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/frame_variable/TestFrameVariableResponse.py: > > >import pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: > > > import pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: > > > import pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestExpressionCmd.py:import > > > pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import > > > pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import > > > pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/startup/TestStartupDelays.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/functionalities/command_regex/TestCommandRegex.py: > > > import pexpect > > > testcases/functionalities/single-quote-in-filename-to-lldb/TestSingleQuoteInFilename.py: > > > import pexpect > > > testcases/functionalities/format/TestFormats.py:import pexpect > > > > > > (I count 14, but there might be something else). > > > > > > I audited all of them and from what I see they’re almost all testing the > > > driver. > > > I had a chat with my coworkers and we agreed it's reasonable to > > > replace them with lit tests (as they're just running commands). > > > This would allow us to get rid of an external dependency, which > > > happened to be cause of trouble in the past. > > > > > > Are there any objections? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > I'm not a fan of pexpect, and if these tests can be converted to lit, > > then I'm all for it. But I do have a question. > > > > There is a class of tests that cannot be written in the current lit > > framework, but they can with pexpect. A couple of weeks ago we had a > > patch fixing a bug where pressing up arrow while searching through the > > command history caused a crash. In the end a test for this was not > > included because it was hard for a reason unrelated to pexpect, but > > without pexpect (or something equivalent) writing a test for this would > > be impossible. > > > > I don't know about this, to be honest. Maybe lit should grow an > interactive mode somehow to accomodate for this functionality? > I'm not an expert in how it's implemented so that could be hard to achieve. > FWIW, I haven't seen anything that really requires interactivity, but > I have to admit I haven't looked really deeply. > > > What's our story for testing interactive command-line functionalities? > > The way I see it, if we don't use pexpect, we'll either have to use some > > other tool which simulates a realistic terminal, or write our own. (We > > already have one attempt for this in > > unittests/Editline/EditlineTest.cpp, but this would need more work to be > > fully functional.) > > > > pl > > > > > > PS: Does anyone actually use the benchmark tests? Can we just delete them? > > I don't know. Maybe Jim knows. I personally don't use them. >
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > 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 pyexpect: > > > > > > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/syntax/TestMiSyntax.py:import pexpect > > > # 7 (EOF) > > > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/lldbmi_testcase.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/lldbtest.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/lldbpexpect.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/terminal/TestSTTYBeforeAndAfter.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/darwin_log.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/macosx/nslog/TestDarwinNSLogOutput.py:import pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/stepping/TestSteppingSpeed.py:import > pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/frame_variable/TestFrameVariableResponse.py: > > >import pexpect > > > > testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: > > > import pexpect > > > > testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: > > > import pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestExpressionCmd.py:import > pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import > pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import > pexpect > > > testcases/benchmarks/startup/TestStartupDelays.py:import > pexpect > > > testcases/functionalities/command_regex/TestCommandRegex.py: > > > import pexpect > > > > testcases/functionalities/single-quote-in-filename-to-lldb/TestSingleQuoteInFilename.py: > > > import pexpect > > > testcases/functionalities/format/TestFormats.py:import pexpect > > > > > > (I count 14, but there might be something else). > > > > > > I audited all of them and from what I see they’re almost all testing > the driver. > > > I had a chat with my coworkers and we agreed it's reasonable to > > > replace them with lit tests (as they're just running commands). > > > This would allow us to get rid of an external dependency, which > > > happened to be cause of trouble in the past. > > > > > > Are there any objections? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > I'm not a fan of pexpect, and if these tests can be converted to lit, > > then I'm all for it. But I do have a question. > > > > There is a class of tests that cannot be written in the current lit > > framework, but they can with pexpect. A couple of weeks ago we had a > > patch fixing a bug where pressing up arrow while searching through the > > command history caused a crash. In the end a test for this was not > > included because it was hard for a reason unrelated to pexpect, but > > without pexpect (or something equivalent) writing a test for this would > > be impossible. > > > > I don't know about this, to be honest. Maybe lit should grow an > interactive mode somehow to accomodate for this functionality? > I'm not an expert in how it's implemented so that could be hard to achieve. > FWIW, I haven't seen anything that really requires interactivity, but > I have to admit I haven't looked really deeply. > > > What's our story for testing interactive command-line functionalities? > > The way I see it, if we don't use pexpect, we'll either have to use some > > other tool which simulates a realistic terminal, or write our own. (We > > already have one attempt for this in > > unittests/Editline/EditlineTest.cpp, but this would need more work to be > > fully functional.) > > > > pl > > > > > > PS: Does anyone actually use the benchmark tests? Can we just delete > them? > > I don't know. Maybe Jim knows. I personally don't use them. > ___ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 pyexpect: > > > > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/syntax/TestMiSyntax.py:import pexpect > > # 7 (EOF) > > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/lldbmi_testcase.py:import pexpect > > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect > > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect > > testcases/lldbtest.py:import pexpect > > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > > testcases/lldbpexpect.py:import pexpect > > testcases/terminal/TestSTTYBeforeAndAfter.py:import pexpect > > testcases/darwin_log.py:import pexpect > > testcases/macosx/nslog/TestDarwinNSLogOutput.py:import pexpect > > testcases/benchmarks/stepping/TestSteppingSpeed.py:import pexpect > > testcases/benchmarks/frame_variable/TestFrameVariableResponse.py: > >import pexpect > > testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: > > import pexpect > > testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: > > import pexpect > > testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestExpressionCmd.py:import pexpect > > testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import pexpect > > testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import pexpect > > testcases/benchmarks/startup/TestStartupDelays.py:import pexpect > > testcases/functionalities/command_regex/TestCommandRegex.py: > > import pexpect > > testcases/functionalities/single-quote-in-filename-to-lldb/TestSingleQuoteInFilename.py: > > import pexpect > > testcases/functionalities/format/TestFormats.py:import pexpect > > > > (I count 14, but there might be something else). > > > > I audited all of them and from what I see they’re almost all testing the > > driver. > > I had a chat with my coworkers and we agreed it's reasonable to > > replace them with lit tests (as they're just running commands). > > This would allow us to get rid of an external dependency, which > > happened to be cause of trouble in the past. > > > > Are there any objections? > > > > Thanks, > > > > I'm not a fan of pexpect, and if these tests can be converted to lit, > then I'm all for it. But I do have a question. > > There is a class of tests that cannot be written in the current lit > framework, but they can with pexpect. A couple of weeks ago we had a > patch fixing a bug where pressing up arrow while searching through the > command history caused a crash. In the end a test for this was not > included because it was hard for a reason unrelated to pexpect, but > without pexpect (or something equivalent) writing a test for this would > be impossible. > I don't know about this, to be honest. Maybe lit should grow an interactive mode somehow to accomodate for this functionality? I'm not an expert in how it's implemented so that could be hard to achieve. FWIW, I haven't seen anything that really requires interactivity, but I have to admit I haven't looked really deeply. > What's our story for testing interactive command-line functionalities? > The way I see it, if we don't use pexpect, we'll either have to use some > other tool which simulates a realistic terminal, or write our own. (We > already have one attempt for this in > unittests/Editline/EditlineTest.cpp, but this would need more work to be > fully functional.) > > pl > > > PS: Does anyone actually use the benchmark tests? Can we just delete them? I don't know. Maybe Jim knows. I personally don't use them. ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 pexpect # 7 (EOF) testcases/tools/lldb-mi/lldbmi_testcase.py:import pexpect testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect testcases/lldbtest.py:import pexpect testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect testcases/lldbpexpect.py:import pexpect testcases/terminal/TestSTTYBeforeAndAfter.py:import pexpect testcases/darwin_log.py:import pexpect testcases/macosx/nslog/TestDarwinNSLogOutput.py:import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/stepping/TestSteppingSpeed.py:import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/frame_variable/TestFrameVariableResponse.py: import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestExpressionCmd.py:import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/startup/TestStartupDelays.py:import pexpect testcases/functionalities/command_regex/TestCommandRegex.py: import pexpect testcases/functionalities/single-quote-in-filename-to-lldb/TestSingleQuoteInFilename.py: import pexpect testcases/functionalities/format/TestFormats.py:import pexpect (I count 14, but there might be something else). I audited all of them and from what I see they’re almost all testing the driver. I had a chat with my coworkers and we agreed it's reasonable to replace them with lit tests (as they're just running commands). This would allow us to get rid of an external dependency, which happened to be cause of trouble in the past. Are there any objections? Thanks, I'm not a fan of pexpect, and if these tests can be converted to lit, then I'm all for it. But I do have a question. There is a class of tests that cannot be written in the current lit framework, but they can with pexpect. A couple of weeks ago we had a patch fixing a bug where pressing up arrow while searching through the command history caused a crash. In the end a test for this was not included because it was hard for a reason unrelated to pexpect, but without pexpect (or something equivalent) writing a test for this would be impossible. What's our story for testing interactive command-line functionalities? The way I see it, if we don't use pexpect, we'll either have to use some other tool which simulates a realistic terminal, or write our own. (We already have one attempt for this in unittests/Editline/EditlineTest.cpp, but this would need more work to be fully functional.) pl PS: Does anyone actually use the benchmark tests? Can we just delete them? ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
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 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 (relatively short) list of tests relying on pyexpect: > > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/syntax/TestMiSyntax.py:import pexpect > # 7 (EOF) > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/lldbmi_testcase.py:import pexpect > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect > testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect > testcases/lldbtest.py:import pexpect > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect > testcases/lldbpexpect.py:import pexpect > testcases/terminal/TestSTTYBeforeAndAfter.py:import pexpect > testcases/darwin_log.py:import pexpect > testcases/macosx/nslog/TestDarwinNSLogOutput.py:import pexpect > testcases/benchmarks/stepping/TestSteppingSpeed.py:import > pexpect > testcases/benchmarks/frame_variable/TestFrameVariableResponse.py: > import pexpect > > testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: >import pexpect > > testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: >import pexpect > testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestExpressionCmd.py:import > pexpect > testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import > pexpect > testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import > pexpect > testcases/benchmarks/startup/TestStartupDelays.py:import > pexpect > testcases/functionalities/command_regex/TestCommandRegex.py: > import pexpect > > testcases/functionalities/single-quote-in-filename-to-lldb/TestSingleQuoteInFilename.py: >import pexpect > testcases/functionalities/format/TestFormats.py:import pexpect > > (I count 14, but there might be something else). > > I audited all of them and from what I see they’re almost all testing > the driver. > I had a chat with my coworkers and we agreed it's reasonable to > replace them with lit tests (as they're just running commands). > This would allow us to get rid of an external dependency, which > happened to be cause of trouble in the past. > > Are there any objections? > > Thanks, > > -- > Davide > ___ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_lldb-2Ddev=DwIGaQ=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw=plcBe-Lvb3GcVnji0z26DNJmyn6uNsBq7AW-IQ7KAQQ=oo0_7ONGQhEkwtwF6DG8I6sVC2lUR-vlmka8pm4v1k0=zp1B92i8MPZxGtbFYUADj5J4GqHwpC1-g_x3fIN1hq0= > > > ___ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect
+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 (relatively short) list of tests relying on pyexpect: testcases/tools/lldb-mi/syntax/TestMiSyntax.py:import pexpect # 7 (EOF) testcases/tools/lldb-mi/lldbmi_testcase.py:import pexpect testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect testcases/tools/lldb-mi/signal/TestMiSignal.py:import pexpect testcases/lldbtest.py:import pexpect testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect testcases/driver/batch_mode/TestBatchMode.py:import pexpect testcases/lldbpexpect.py:import pexpect testcases/terminal/TestSTTYBeforeAndAfter.py:import pexpect testcases/darwin_log.py:import pexpect testcases/macosx/nslog/TestDarwinNSLogOutput.py:import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/stepping/TestSteppingSpeed.py:import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/frame_variable/TestFrameVariableResponse.py: import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/turnaround/TestCompileRunToBreakpointTurnaround.py: import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestExpressionCmd.py:import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/expression/TestRepeatedExprs.py:import pexpect testcases/benchmarks/startup/TestStartupDelays.py:import pexpect testcases/functionalities/command_regex/TestCommandRegex.py: import pexpect testcases/functionalities/single-quote-in-filename-to-lldb/TestSingleQuoteInFilename.py: import pexpect testcases/functionalities/format/TestFormats.py:import pexpect (I count 14, but there might be something else). I audited all of them and from what I see they’re almost all testing the driver. I had a chat with my coworkers and we agreed it's reasonable to replace them with lit tests (as they're just running commands). This would allow us to get rid of an external dependency, which happened to be cause of trouble in the past. Are there any objections? Thanks, -- Davide ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_lldb-2Ddev=DwIGaQ=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw=plcBe-Lvb3GcVnji0z26DNJmyn6uNsBq7AW-IQ7KAQQ=oo0_7ONGQhEkwtwF6DG8I6sVC2lUR-vlmka8pm4v1k0=zp1B92i8MPZxGtbFYUADj5J4GqHwpC1-g_x3fIN1hq0= ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev