tfiala added a comment. > > There is no reasonable thing we can base the expectation as the exact same > > device with a different cpu revision could support watchpoints just fine, > > so we could just define the list of these tests externally (in this case, I > > would probably annotate them with the watchpoint category and then do the > > skips based on categories instead).
> Tangential: most chips I've worked on that had hardware watchpoint support had an instruction that could be called to find out if such a feature exists. I think ARM does this. I would think we could expose an API that says whether watchpoints are supported or not, and use that info in LLDB and the test suite to enable or disable them. I'll look at the rest of the change here. I'm not opposed to the general idea, although if it encourages people to skip running tests, then check in code that breaks those tests, "unbeknownst to them" (* only because they were intentionally not running them), then I'd say that's bad news. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24629 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
