chaoren marked an inline comment as done.
Comment at: lldb/trunk/cmake/platforms/Android.cmake:110
@@ -109,1 +109,3 @@
endif()
+elseif( ANDROID_ABI STREQUAL "mips" )
+ # http://b.android.com/182094
ovyalov wrote:
> Do we need the same workaround for mips64?
Nope
ovyalov added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/trunk/cmake/platforms/Android.cmake:110
@@ -109,1 +109,3 @@
endif()
+elseif( ANDROID_ABI STREQUAL "mips" )
+ # http://b.android.com/182094
Do we need the same workaround for mips64?
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL244298: Add -latomic to Android mips build to avoid
http://b.android.com/182094. (authored by chaoren).
Changed prior to commit:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11825?vs=31493&id=31494#toc
Repository:
rL LL
zturner added a comment.
Dawn are you ok with this? I believe this fixes your issue, so i want to make
sure before I commit.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11816
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mai
chaoren created this revision.
chaoren added a reviewer: ovyalov.
chaoren added a subscriber: lldb-commits.
Herald added subscribers: srhines, danalbert, tberghammer.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11825
Files:
cmake/platforms/Android.cmake
Index: cmake/platforms/Android.cmake
==
chaoren accepted this revision.
chaoren added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM. I'll do the overwritable lines in a follow up patch. You don't really
need a stateful printer, just need to get the length of the longest test name.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11816
zturner updated this revision to Diff 31491.
zturner added a comment.
Merge the test name into the progress line. If we want to get overwritable
lines we will need to use a stateful line printer that can clear the contents
of the current line after issuing a carriage return.
http://reviews.ll
chaoren added inline comments.
Comment at: test/dosep.py:142
@@ +141,3 @@
+if exit_status == 0:
+# stdout does not have any useful information from 'dotest.py', only
stderr does.
+report_test_pass(name, output[1])
To clarify, I mean something
chaoren added inline comments.
Comment at: test/dosep.py:142
@@ -128,2 +141,3 @@
passes, failures = parse_test_results(output)
-update_status(name, command, output if exit_status != 0 else None)
+if exit_status == 0:
+report_test_pass(name, output[1])
zturner updated this revision to Diff 31482.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11816
Files:
test/dosep.py
Index: test/dosep.py
===
--- test/dosep.py
+++ test/dosep.py
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#!/usr/bin/env python
+#!/usr/bin/env python
"""
R
zturner added inline comments.
Comment at: test/dosep.py:142
@@ -128,2 +141,3 @@
passes, failures = parse_test_results(output)
-update_status(name, command, output if exit_status != 0 else None)
+if exit_status == 0:
+report_test_pass(name, output[1])
zturner added inline comments.
Comment at: test/dosep.py:82
@@ +81,3 @@
+with output_lock:
+print >> sys.stderr, stdout
+print >> sys.stderr, "[%s] FAILED" % name
zturner wrote:
> chaoren wrote:
> > Why did you move this here? Could you please
zturner added inline comments.
Comment at: test/dosep.py:82
@@ +81,3 @@
+with output_lock:
+print >> sys.stderr, stdout
+print >> sys.stderr, "[%s] FAILED" % name
chaoren wrote:
> Why did you move this here? Could you please move stderr here to
chaoren added inline comments.
Comment at: test/dosep.py:82
@@ +81,3 @@
+with output_lock:
+print >> sys.stderr, stdout
+print >> sys.stderr, "[%s] FAILED" % name
Why did you move this here? Could you please move stderr here too? It seems
weir
zturner added a comment.
I want to make it clear again though that we do not support relying on the
output of dotest.py when running dosep. The patch which originally broke this
made it possible to collect detailed information about the tests that were run
from within dosep. If you want to pr
zturner created this revision.
zturner added reviewers: dawn, chaoren.
zturner added a subscriber: lldb-commits.
Previously all test output was reported by each individual
instance of dotest.py. After a recent patch, dosep gets dotest
outptu via a pipe, and selectively decides which output to
pri
Sorry, I don't have much to add here. I guess you need to wait for Sean or
Jim to respond.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:22 PM Dawn Perchik wrote:
> dawn added a comment.
>
> Please review? Thank you.
>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D11102
>
>
>
>
___
lldb-
dawn added a comment.
Please review? Thank you.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11102
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
Resending to new mailing list. @cs.uiuc.edu doesn't work anymore, all
messages should go to @lists.llvm.org.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:46 AM Zachary Turner wrote:
> This patch (http://reviews.llvm.org/D11717) was supposed to fix it, but I
> don't see anything posted to lldb-commits indicating th
19 matches
Mail list logo
