labath added a comment. In D62931#1607221 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62931#1607221>, @guiandrade wrote:
> Oh, sorry about that. I was relying on `ninja check`, which runs okay for me. > > > ninja check > [0/1] Running the LLVM regression tests > Testing Time: 583.96s > Expected Passes : 32141 > Expected Failures : 147 > Unsupported Tests : 438 > > > How can I invoke those other tests? (in case it's relevant, here's my cmake > command `cmake ../llvm -G Ninja -DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS='lldb;clang;libcxx'`) LLDB tests can be run with the "check-lldb" target. There's also "check-all" which would run *all* tests, but that's usually overkill. > About not tying `G` and `g` together, maybe could we remove this branch > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/63e5fb76ecfed3434252868d8cf07d676f979f2f/lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteRegisterContext.cpp#L336>? That would be fine for lldb-server, but I am not sure how would that play with other stubs. As I understand it, the main reason this read-all-at-once logic was introduced was to handle stubs which did not implement `p`/`P` packets, so we may not be able to just start sending `P` unconditionally. @clayborg or @jasonmolenda can probably say more about that... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62931/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62931 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
