labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. I agree with the idea in general, but I wanted to ask what is your plan with the android decorators: For them we use the additional `api_levels` flag, which does not exist on other platforms/decorators. I suppose we could add that flag to `expectedFailureAll`, but I am not sure if that would be a good idea...
Also, since we are doing all this refactoring, one more improvement I can think of is renaming `expectedFailureAll` to `expectedFailure`. It was named `All` because we already have an `expectedFailure` function, but I think that one is now more of an implementation detail and could be renamed to something else. Up to you... http://reviews.llvm.org/D16936 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
