vsk added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53731#1276732, @zturner wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53731#1276660, @jingham wrote: > > > Could you also use Vedant's new FileCheck dotest test class? That should > > allow you to write the tests exactly as you are, but use the dotest > > mechanism to build and run the example. > > > Adding Vedant here. My understanding is that the work he did there is like > the inverse of what I'm doing. It allows you to use FileCheck from inside of > dotest tests, but I was trying to bypass dotest here. I don't necessarily > think "dotest for all things" should be an explicit goal (i actually think > long term we should move away from it, but that's for another day). Aside > from that though, I don't think this particular test needs any of the > functionality that dotest offers. It offers building in multiple > configurations, but we can get that from this test by just specifying > mulitple run lines (I'm testing this out locally and it seems like I can get > it to work). Eventually, using some kind of configuration / builder type > system like I brainstormed in the review thread I linked previously, I think > we could have all the advantages of dotest's builder even with this style of > test. > > FWIW, I was also under the impression that Vedant's solution with FileCheck > in dotest was only intended as sort of an immediate solution to a problem, > but not necessary the long term desired end-state. (I could be wrong about > this though). The tests as-written seem to exercise the new functionality. I think it'd be fine to use the FileCheck-in-{dotest,lldbinline} support if you need to set a breakpoint, run a command, and then validate its output (though it looks like you don't) https://reviews.llvm.org/D53731 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
