Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-03-08 Thread Davide Italiano via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-02-26 Thread Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
: 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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-02-25 Thread Adrian Prantl via lldb-dev
>> On 21/02/2019 19:48, Ted Woodward wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: lldb-dev On Behalf Of Pavel >>>>>>>> Labath >>>>&g

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-02-25 Thread Davide Italiano via lldb-dev
-Original Message- > >>>>>> From: lldb-dev On Behalf Of Pavel > >>>>>> Labath > >>>>>> via lldb-dev > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:35 AM > >>>>>> To: Davide Italiano >

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-02-25 Thread Davide Italiano via lldb-dev
>>> > >>>> -Original Message- > >>>> From: lldb-dev On Behalf Of Pavel > >>>> Labath > >>>> via lldb-dev > >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:35 AM > >>>> To: Davide Italiano

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-02-25 Thread Adrian Prantl via lldb-dev
te: >>>> >>>> On 21/02/2019 19:48, Ted Woodward wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>> From: lldb-dev On Behalf Of Pavel >>>>>> Labath >>>>

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-02-25 Thread Adrian Prantl via 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/

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-02-25 Thread Davide Italiano via lldb-dev
, 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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-02-22 Thread Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-02-21 Thread Ted Woodward via lldb-dev
> -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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-02-21 Thread Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-02-21 Thread Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-02-20 Thread Davide Italiano via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-31 Thread Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-31 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-31 Thread Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-31 Thread Jim Ingham via lldb-dev
> 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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-31 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-31 Thread Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-31 Thread Jim Ingham via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-31 Thread Jim Ingham via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-31 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
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 <

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-31 Thread 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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-31 Thread Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-30 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
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

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-30 Thread Alex Langford via lldb-dev
+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