jasonmolenda updated this revision to Diff 141473.
jasonmolenda added a comment.
rewrote the test cases in terms of self.expect. Haven't looked at being
totally correct with flagging paths with .experimental. as never-errored.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45348
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite
> On Apr 6, 2018, at 2:29 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 22:52:05 +0200, Greg Clayton wrote:
>> Switching over to the LLVM parser will require some detailed work and will
>> take some time.
>
> So should I continue pushing the DWZ patchset even before the reuse of LLVM
> DWA
> -Original Message-
> From: llvm-commits [mailto:llvm-commits-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf
> Of Jan Kratochvil via llvm-commits
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 5:29 PM
> To: Greg Clayton
> Cc: reviews+d45170+public+e75ed5903a857...@reviews.llvm.org; Jason
> Molenda; lldb-commits@list
> On Apr 6, 2018, at 2:07 AM, Pavel Labath via Phabricator
> wrote:
>
> labath added inline comments.
>
>
>
> Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/settings/TestSettings.py:544-545
> +# the actual name and via .experimental.
> +cmdinterp.HandleCommand("s
> On Apr 6, 2018, at 1:52 PM, Greg Clayton wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Apr 6, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Jan Kratochvil
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 18:58:27 +0200, Davide Italiano wrote:
>>> Yes, I definitely agree. It's clear this needs more discussion, so I
>>> don't think it's reasonable if we r
On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 22:52:05 +0200, Greg Clayton wrote:
> Switching over to the LLVM parser will require some detailed work and will
> take some time.
So should I continue pushing the DWZ patchset even before the reuse of LLVM
DWARFUnit happens?
> That being said, I am confused as to why this wa
> On Apr 6, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 18:58:27 +0200, Davide Italiano wrote:
>> Yes, I definitely agree. It's clear this needs more discussion, so I
>> don't think it's reasonable if we revert this for now and
>> reconsider.
>
> I have reverted this https
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Jan Kratochvil
wrote:
> Maybe LLDB should really reuse LLVM DWARFUnit first and I will implement DWZ
> already on top of LLVM's DWARFUnit? I have no idea myself now how complex task
> is the reuse of LLVM DWARFUnit. For the LLVM DWARFUnit reusal this Greg's
> commi
On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 18:58:27 +0200, Davide Italiano wrote:
> Yes, I definitely agree. It's clear this needs more discussion, so I
> don't think it's reasonable if we revert this for now and
> reconsider.
I have reverted this https://reviews.llvm.org/D45170 by:
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL32
jankratochvil added a comment.
I have reverted this commit after approval by Davide Italiano and Adrian Prantl
at:
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/Week-of-Mon-20180402/040176.html
The revert:
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/lldb/trunk@329423
91177308-0d34-0410-
Author: davide
Date: Fri Apr 6 10:17:20 2018
New Revision: 329426
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=329426&view=rev
Log:
[lldb-server] Set a more generous timeout when testing gdbremote.
One of our downstream bot is struggling under load, but this
value should be enough for everyone.
Author: jankratochvil
Date: Fri Apr 6 10:11:13 2018
New Revision: 329423
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=329423&view=rev
Log:
Revert "Cleanup DWARFCompileUnit and DWARFUnit in preparation for adding
DWARFTypeUnit"
The reverted commit changed DWARFUnit from https://reviews.llvm.org/
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Davide Italiano wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Jan Kratochvil via Phabricator
>> wrote:
>>> jankratochvil added a comment.
>>>
>>> I disagree with this patch as `DWARFUnit` was a lightweight wra
> On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Davide Italiano wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Jan Kratochvil via Phabricator
> wrote:
>> jankratochvil added a comment.
>>
>> I disagree with this patch as `DWARFUnit` was a lightweight wrapper for
>> `DWARFPartialUnit`. Now I will have to create s
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Jan Kratochvil via Phabricator
wrote:
> jankratochvil added a comment.
>
> I disagree with this patch as `DWARFUnit` was a lightweight wrapper for
> `DWARFPartialUnit`. Now I will have to create some new lightweight
> superclass like `DWARFAbstractUnit`.
> My pat
labath added inline comments.
Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/settings/TestSettings.py:544-545
+# the actual name and via .experimental.
+cmdinterp.HandleCommand("settings set target.arg0 first-value", result)
+self.assertEqual(result.Succeeded(
labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45332#1058976, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45332#1058970, @zturner wrote:
>
> > I don't think `sys.path` is set up correctly to be able to find the
> > lldbtest package from the `lldb/lit` folder.
> >
> > These things k
jankratochvil added a comment.
I disagree with this patch as `DWARFUnit` was a lightweight wrapper for
`DWARFPartialUnit`. Now I will have to create some new lightweight superclass
like `DWARFAbstractUnit`.
My patch prepared it for:
DWARFUnit->DWARFCompileUnit
DWARFUnit->DWARFPartialUnit
18 matches
Mail list logo
