Summary:
Before:
AssertionError: False is not True : Process is launched successfully
After:
AssertionError: False is not True : Command 'run a.out' failed.
>>> error: invalid target, create a target using the 'target create' command
>>> Process could not be launched successfully
Reviewers: clayborg
Reviewed By: clayborg
Subscribers: lldb-commits, vharron
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9948
llvm-svn: 238363
Summary:
This is to get the bots to go green while a robust solution to fix these
tests is worked out.
Reviewers: chaoren, tberghammer, clayborg
Reviewed By: tberghammer, clayborg
Subscribers: lldb-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8947
llvm-svn: 234625
Removed expectedFailureLinux from failures that I was unable to
reproduce, updated and improved some other comments near XFAIL tests
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8676
llvm-svn: 233716
Adds @skipIfPlatform and @skipUnlessPlatform decorators which will skip if /
unless the target platform is in the provided platform list.
Test Plan:
ninja check-lldb shows no regressions.
When running cross platform, tests which cannot run on the target platform are
skipped.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8665
llvm-svn: 233547
The following lldb unit tests fail check-lldb on ubuntu:
TestDataFormatterStdMap.py
TestDataFormatterStdVBool.py
TestDataFormatterStdVector.py
TestDataFormatterSynthVal.py
TestEvents.py
TestInitializerList.py
TestMemoryHistory.py
TestReportData.py
TestValueVarUpdate.py
These unit test failures are for non-core functionality. The intent is to
reduce the check-lldb FAILS to core functionality FAILS and then circle
back later and fix these FAILS at a later date.
llvm-svn: 222608
The way to do this is to write a synthetic child provider for your type, and have it vend the (optional) get_value function.
If get_value is defined, and it returns a valid SBValue, that SBValue's value (as in lldb_private::Value) will be used as the synthetic ValueObject's Value
The rationale for doing things this way is twofold:
- there are many possible ways to define a "value" (SBData, a Python number, ...) but SBValue seems general enough as a thing that stores a "value", so we just trade values that way and that keeps our currency trivial
- we could introduce a new level of layering (ValueObjectSyntheticValue), a new kind of formatter (synthetic value producer), but that would complicate the model (can I have a dynamic with no synthetic children but synthetic value? synthetic value with synthetic children but no dynamic?), and I really couldn't see much benefit to be reaped from this added complexity in the matrix
On the other hand, just defining a synthetic child provider with a get_value but returning no actual children is easy enough that it's not a significant road-block to adoption of this feature
Comes with a test case
llvm-svn: 219330
Sean Callanan