zturner added a comment. FWIW, I think Adrian's original point is that testing the behavior of signed types shouldn't depend on step over functionality. It's good practice in general to make tests depend on as little debugger functionality as possibly to reliably test the thing you want to test. Because the more functionality you depend on, the more fickle your test becomes. Why does a bug in one platform's implementation of step over break a test about whether signed ints work?
So, I'm all for removing this test's dependency on step-over (TestUnsignedTypes doesn't use step over, for example) if there's a way to reliably test the functionality without step over. But I still think it's important to know what CL broke all these tests. http://reviews.llvm.org/D16334 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
