mgorny added a comment. In D100191#2704403 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191#2704403>, @labath wrote:
> Let's identify the set of patches needed to make this testable via the > lldb-server suite (this one, D100153 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100153>, > D100208 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100208> (or equivalent for some other os), > and what else?) and test that? In its current form, D100208 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100208> relies at least on D100196 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100196> as well. I suppose we might get away without other patches for now. My logic is that as long as client doesn't indicate fork support, the regular LLDB behavior won't change. We can mock-enable `fork-events` in the server tests to get things rolling, unless I'm missing something. I think we could avoid merging D100196 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100196> if I split D100208 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100208> into two parts, the earlier part just calling `NewSubprocess()` without actually reporting stop. This won't be really functional (or used in real sessions) but should suffice for testing. To be honest, I really like to keep these patches small, even if it means it takes 2 or 3 patches to make a test. I would prefer just adding the test to the last patch in series. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
