JDevlieghere planned changes to this revision. JDevlieghere marked 2 inline comments as done. JDevlieghere added a comment.
In D75877#1913959 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75877#1913959>, @labath wrote: > A more principled way to make this work would be to intercept (record) the > Host::FindProcesses api. That way other functionality pertaining to running > processes (e.g. the "platform process list" command) would also work. But if > this is all you care about right now, then maybe this is fine... We could totally add a provider for that. I didn't because it seemed like overkill but if you're on board I also prefer that over a random PID. > The part that worries me more is the test. There are a lot of subtleties > involved in making attach tests (and attach-by-name tests in particular) work > reliably everywhere. I think this should be a dotest test, as there we > already have some machinery to do these kinds of things > (`lldb_enable_attach`, `wait_for_file_on_target`), and python is generally > much better at complex control flow (I am very much against subshells and > background processes in lit tests). Reproducers make this somewhat > complicated because you cannot use the liblldb instance already loaded into > the python process. But maybe you could run lldb in a subprocess similar to > how the pexpect tests do it? The problem is the `SBDebugger::Initialize()` that's called from the SWIG bindings, as soon as you import lldb it's already too late for the reproducers. I'm working on being able to capture/replay the test suite and currently I have the following hack: if 'DOTEST_CAPTURE_PATH' in os.environ: SBReproducer.Capture(os.environ['DOTEST_CAPTURE_PATH']) SBDebugger.Initialize() If you're fine with having that in `python.swig` unconditionally we could make a dotest-test work. ================ Comment at: lldb/test/Shell/Reproducer/TestAttach.test:7 +# RUN: %clang_host %S/Inputs/sleep.c -g -o %t/attach.out +# RUN: python -c 'import os; os.system("%t/attach.out &")' + ---------------- labath wrote: > How is this different from a plain `%t/attach.out &` ? Should that work? That's the first thing I tried and lit complained about invalid syntax. Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75877/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75877 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
