github-actions[bot] wrote:
@kendalharland Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged
into the LLVM Project!
Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then
tested
by our [build bots](https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/). If there is a problem with
a
https://github.com/labath closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
@@ -10,9 +10,10 @@
class TestDAP_stepInTargets(lldbdap_testcase.DAPTestCaseBase):
-@skipIf(
-archs=no_match(["x86_64"])
-) # InstructionControlFlowKind for ARM is not supported yet.
+@skipIf
+# InstructionControlFlowKind for ARM is not supported yet.
@@ -10,9 +10,10 @@
class TestDAP_stepInTargets(lldbdap_testcase.DAPTestCaseBase):
-@skipIf(
-archs=no_match(["x86_64"])
-) # InstructionControlFlowKind for ARM is not supported yet.
+@skipIf
+# InstructionControlFlowKind for ARM is not supported yet.
https://github.com/kendalharland updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
>From 02f06f90a40cc7ed18a9744918acf4daf6212486 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: kendal
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:01:31 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Fix test assertions in TestDAP_stepInTargets.py
---
.../step
@@ -10,9 +10,10 @@
class TestDAP_stepInTargets(lldbdap_testcase.DAPTestCaseBase):
-@skipIf(
-archs=no_match(["x86_64"])
-) # InstructionControlFlowKind for ARM is not supported yet.
+@skipIf
+# InstructionControlFlowKind for ARM is not supported yet.
https://github.com/kendalharland edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
@@ -55,14 +55,23 @@ def test_basic(self):
self.assertEqual(len(step_in_targets), 3, "expect 3 step in targets")
# Verify the target names are correct.
-self.assertEqual(step_in_targets[0]["label"], "bar()", "expect bar()")
-self.assertEqual(step
https://github.com/kendalharland updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
>From 02f06f90a40cc7ed18a9744918acf4daf6212486 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: kendal
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:01:31 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Fix test assertions in TestDAP_stepInTargets.py
---
.../step
@@ -55,14 +55,23 @@ def test_basic(self):
self.assertEqual(len(step_in_targets), 3, "expect 3 step in targets")
# Verify the target names are correct.
-self.assertEqual(step_in_targets[0]["label"], "bar()", "expect bar()")
-self.assertEqual(step
https://github.com/kendalharland updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
>From 02f06f90a40cc7ed18a9744918acf4daf6212486 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: kendal
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:01:31 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Fix test assertions in TestDAP_stepInTargets.py
---
.../step
@@ -55,14 +55,23 @@ def test_basic(self):
self.assertEqual(len(step_in_targets), 3, "expect 3 step in targets")
# Verify the target names are correct.
-self.assertEqual(step_in_targets[0]["label"], "bar()", "expect bar()")
-self.assertEqual(step
https://github.com/jeffreytan81 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
@@ -55,14 +55,23 @@ def test_basic(self):
self.assertEqual(len(step_in_targets), 3, "expect 3 step in targets")
# Verify the target names are correct.
-self.assertEqual(step_in_targets[0]["label"], "bar()", "expect bar()")
-self.assertEqual(step
https://github.com/kendalharland updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
>From 02f06f90a40cc7ed18a9744918acf4daf6212486 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: kendal
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:01:31 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Fix test assertions in TestDAP_stepInTargets.py
---
.../stepInTa
https://github.com/kendalharland edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
@@ -55,14 +55,23 @@ def test_basic(self):
self.assertEqual(len(step_in_targets), 3, "expect 3 step in targets")
# Verify the target names are correct.
-self.assertEqual(step_in_targets[0]["label"], "bar()", "expect bar()")
-self.assertEqual(step
@@ -55,14 +55,23 @@ def test_basic(self):
self.assertEqual(len(step_in_targets), 3, "expect 3 step in targets")
# Verify the target names are correct.
-self.assertEqual(step_in_targets[0]["label"], "bar()", "expect bar()")
-self.assertEqual(step
kendalharland wrote:
Nice find! I didn't now about godbolt.org. Updated the test to be
order-independent w.r.t. funcA and funcB.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.
https://github.com/kendalharland updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
>From 2584ce932af07fdac1450e47f74fbd17c8428bb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: kendal
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:01:31 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Fix test assertions in TestDAP_stepInTargets.py
---
.../stepInTa
https://github.com/kendalharland updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
>From b880f6d7951534fd90c3728fb9cabbe515295557 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: kendal
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 13:42:20 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Fix flake in TestZerothFrame.py
This test is relying on the o
labath wrote:
> AssertionError: 'funcB' not found in 'funcA()' : expect funcB
The step targets are coming in different order. It's probably an ABI thing, as
the compiler produces the calls in different order as well:
https://godbolt.org/z/cPqhsWba6
I guess we need to adjust the test to accep
kendalharland wrote:
> Sorry, was in the middle of review then got interrupted/distracted by other
> stuff yesterday.
>
> Looks good.
No problem at all. Thanks for the reviews! I'll look into the build failures.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
_
https://github.com/jeffreytan81 approved this pull request.
Sorry, was in the middle of review then got interrupted/distracted by other
stuff yesterday.
Looks good.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-co
labath wrote:
This looks fine to me. @jeffreytan81 ?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
kendalharland wrote:
> > I'm not sure if these names come from the demangler or debug info, but
> > windows has different implementations for both, so it not surprising
> > they're different. Assuming we don't care about the precise formatting of
> > the names, we could just check whether the
https://github.com/kendalharland edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/kendalharland updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
>From 58adc302fe08220f60513599f8a9ff6a72ce49ac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: kendal
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:01:31 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Fix test assertions in TestDAP_stepInTargets.py
---
.../lldb-dap
kendalharland wrote:
> I'm not sure if these names come from the demangler or debug info, but
> windows has different implementations for both, so it not surprising they're
> different. Assuming we don't care about the precise formatting of the names,
> we could just check whether the name of
labath wrote:
I'm not sure if these names come from the demangler or debug info, but windows
has different implementations for both, so it not surprising they're different.
Assuming we don't care about the precise formatting of the names, we could
just check whether the name of the function i
bulbazord wrote:
One option might be to change the test to match against some list of expected
strings. I'm not super familiar with this test but as Jeffrey said this could
be OS/Platform dependent.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
___
https://github.com/jeffreytan81 requested changes to this pull request.
Have you tried to run this test on Linux? It is passing on my machine. I am
pretty sure this might be Windows platform (like compiler and disassembler)
specific behavior which you shouldn't change the default value for the
kendalharland wrote:
This PR was really just the result of me looking at the test output on my own
machine and copy-pasting the values that were generated by the test's data. I
am not familiar with this test's implementation and would appreciate any
guidance on whether there really is a bug he
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb
Author: Kendal Harland (kendalharland)
Changes
The strings this test is using seem to consistently fail to match against the
expected values when built & run targeting Windows amd64. This PR updates
them to the expected values.
---
Full diff: htt
github-actions[bot] wrote:
Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project!
This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be
notified.
If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this
page.
If this is not working for you, it
https://github.com/kendalharland created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96687
The strings this test is using seem to consistently fail to match against the
expected values when built & run targeting Windows amd64. This PR updates them
to the expected values.
>From 2e3ac00255e5608ff
36 matches
Mail list logo
