> On Nov 29, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > FWIW, it can certainly use the SB API where it makes sense, but I think > requiring that it only use the SB API would be very limiting and a big > mistake. > > The entire point of a tool such as this is that it allows you to dig deep > into internals that would be difficult to access otherwise.
I'm not sure about that. Making a test that "digs deep into internals" in this method is almost certainly going to require writing a custom command in lldb-test to poke those API's. How would this be any easier than writing a unit test? Jim > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:23 PM Jason Molenda <jmole...@apple.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:51 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-commits > > <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:59 PM Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote: > > I'm mostly basing this concern on the bad effect this had on gdb all of > > whose testing was expect based command scraping. gdb is a tool that's much > > closer to lldb than any of the compiler tools so that experience seems > > relevant. It's been a decade or so since I worked on gdb, but back when I > > was working on it, you really had to tread very carefully if you wanted to > > change the output of, say, the break command, or to thread listings, etc, > > and a bunch of times I just had to bag some cleanup of output I wanted to > > do because fixing up all the tests was too time consuming. Because Jason > > and I had both had this experience when we started working on lldb, we > > promised ourselves we wouldn't go down this path again... > > > > > > Couple of things: > > > > 1) I wouldn't dare to use this approach for anything that required > > interactivity. If you need to run one command, extract a value from the > > output, and use that value as input to another command, I think that would > > be a big mistake. I have no intention of ever proposing something like > > that. > > > > 2) FileCheck is very flexible in the way it matches output and tests can be > > written so that they are resilient to minor format tweaks. I have no doubt > > that with pure regex matching, or with pretty much any other tool, you > > would have a really bad time. Of course, that doesn't mean it would be > > hard to construct an example of a format change that would break a > > FileCheck test. But I think it would happen *far* less frequently than it > > did on GDB. That said, I still understand your concerns that it's fragile, > > so... > > > > 3) I would not be opposed to a tool called lldb-test, which was basically > > just LLDB with a different, and much more limited set of commands, and was > > completely non-interactive and would produce output in a format designed > > for being scraped, and which never had to be changed since it was never > > presented to the user. > > > 100% agree with #3. We could go back and forth about using lldb-mi, but I > think a specialized driver using SB API, designed for testing, would be a > great approach. > > _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
