labath added a comment. In D128410#3609185 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128410#3609185>, @mstorsjo wrote:
> In D128410#3608190 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128410#3608190>, @labath wrote: > >> In D128410#3604927 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128410#3604927>, @alvinhochun >> wrote: >> >>> It may be possible to stuff a pointer to an `EXCEPTION_RECORD` into another >>> `EXCEPTION_RECORD` and use `RtlRaiseException` to generate the exception, >>> but you'll have to test how it actually works. >> >> That would be pretty cool. > > Yeah - I guess it's two separate kinds of testcases; this one would be more > of a macro-testcase, "does this real-world case work - whichever way lldb > happens to handle it" (nested exception or not?) while that would be more of > a clinical unit test for specifically testing nested exceptions. That's true. However, if I had to choose between the two, I would always go for the one with the fewest moving parts. Lldb has a lot of problems with reproducibility of tests, so I am always looking for ways to make tests more specific. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128410/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128410 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
