The test is now passing, so remove the expected failure. No other tests associated with the bug are passing, though, so only remove expected failure from this one test
llvm-svn: 372634
Summary:
Currently our expression evaluators only prints very basic errors that are not very useful when writing complex expressions.
For example, in the expression below the user made a type error, but it's not clear from the diagnostic what went wrong:
```
(lldb) expr printf("Modulos are:", foobar%mo1, foobar%mo2, foobar%mo3)
error: invalid operands to binary expression ('int' and 'double')
```
This patch enables full Clang diagnostics in our expression evaluator. After this patch the diagnostics for the expression look like this:
```
(lldb) expr printf("Modulos are:", foobar%mo1, foobar%mo2, foobar%mo3)
error: <user expression 1>:1:54: invalid operands to binary expression ('int' and 'float')
printf("Modulos are:", foobar%mo1, foobar%mo2, foobar%mo3)
~~~~~~^~~~
```
To make this possible, we now emulate a user expression file within our diagnostics. This prevents that the user is exposed to
our internal wrapper code we inject.
Note that the diagnostics that refer to declarations from the debug information (e.g. 'note' diagnostics pointing to a called function)
will not be improved by this as they don't have any source locations associated with them, so caret or line printing isn't possible.
We instead just suppress these diagnostics as we already do with warnings as they would otherwise just be a context message
without any context (and the original diagnostic in the user expression should be enough to explain the issue).
Fixes rdar://24306342
Reviewers: JDevlieghere, aprantl, shafik, #lldb
Reviewed By: JDevlieghere, #lldb
Subscribers: usaxena95, davide, jingham, aprantl, arphaman, kadircet, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65646
llvm-svn: 372203
I'm still unable to reproduce this locally, so let's see if this
is enough to make the bots happy. The missing dimension parameter
seems to be the biggest difference between these tests and
TestIOHandlerCompletion.py which runs just fine on the same bot,
so that's the motivation for trying this out.
llvm-svn: 371077
Summary:
Instead of each test case knowing its depth relative to the test root,
we can just have dotest add the folder containing Makefile.rules to the
include path.
This was motivated by r370616, though I have been wanting to do this
ever since we moved to building tests out-of-tree.
The only manually modified files in this patch are lldbinline.py and
plugins/builder_base.py. The rest of the patch has been produced by this
shell command:
find . \( -name Makefile -o -name '*.mk' \) -exec sed --in-place -e '/LEVEL *:\?=/d' -e '1,2{/^$/d}' -e 's,\$(LEVEL)/,,' {} +
Reviewers: teemperor, aprantl, espindola, jfb
Subscribers: emaste, javed.absar, arichardson, christof, arphaman, lldb-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67083
llvm-svn: 370845
Summary:
As discussed on lldb-dev, this patch moves some LLDB tests into a hierarchy that more closely
resembles the commands we use in the LLDB interpreter. This patch should only move tests
that use the command interpreter and shouldn't touch any tests that primarily test the SB API.
Reviewers: #lldb, jfb, JDevlieghere
Reviewed By: #lldb, JDevlieghere
Subscribers: dexonsmith, arphaman, JDevlieghere, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67033
llvm-svn: 370605
Stella Stamenova