[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r316451 - Revert "[lldbtests] Handle errors instead of crashing."

[Davide Italiano via lldb-commits]

Fun fact, there are 13 implementations in tree of is_exe (and probably
which). Maybe we should try replacing all them with the one from lit?
Or is there some hidden dependency I'm missing?

[davide at cupiditate lldb]$ grep -R 'def is_exe' *
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py:def is_exe(fpath):
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lldbtest.py:def is_exe(fpath):
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/benchmarks/disassembly/TestDisassembly.py:def
is_exe(fpath):
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lldbutil.py:def is_exe(fpath):
scripts/Xcode/build-llvm.py:def is_executable(path):
test/testcases/dotest.py:def is_exe(fpath):
test/testcases/lldbtest.py:def is_exe(fpath):
test/testcases/benchmarks/disassembly/TestDisassembly.py:def is_exe(fpath):
test/testcases/lldbutil.py:def is_exe(fpath):
utils/test/llvm-mc-shell.py:def is_exe(fpath):
utils/test/disasm.py:def is_exe(fpath):
utils/test/run-until-faulted.py:def is_exe(fpath):
utils/lui/lldbutil.py:def is_exe(fpath):
[davide at cupiditate lldb]$ grep -R 'def is_exe' * |wc -l
13

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Davide Italiano <dccitaliano at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote:
>> The breaking build is this one: <
>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake/builds/14775>
>>
>> The blame email was sent (I know because I got it, as I also had a
>> commit in the same build). Is it possible you overlooked it?
>>
>> ```
>> def is_exe(fpath):
>>    if not os.path.exists(fpath):
>>        fpath = lit.util.which(fpath)
>>        if not (fpath and os.path.exists(fpath)):
>>          sys.exit(-1)
>>       return is_exe(fpath)
>>
>>    return os.path.isfile(fpath) and os.access(fpath, os.X_OK)
>> ```
>> ===
>>
>> There is a which function in dotest.py -- the thing that made the fix
>> un-obvious is that it is implemented in terms of the is_exe function
>> :D.
>>
>> So it will require a bit of refactoring to achieve this, which i did
>> not want to do in a hurry.
>>
>
> Now that I have the link I realized gmail put it to spam, go figure.
> Anyway, thanks. I think the whole dotest.py requires a little bit of
> love and I'll make sure to test with the same conf in the bot that
> broke before putting up another review :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Davide