[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46588: [LLDB][lldb-mi] Add possibility to set breakpoints without selecting a target.
Adrian Prantl via Phabricator via lldb-commits
lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue May 15 15:27:59 PDT 2018
aprantl added inline comments.
Comment at: lit/tools/lldb-mi/breakpoint/break-insert.test:14
+# CHECK-AFTER: ^running
+# CHECK-AFTER: *stopped,reason="breakpoint-hit"
> aprantl wrote:
> > CHECK-AFTER is not recognized by FileCheck:
> > https://www.llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/FileCheck.html
> > You probably saw this in a testcase that ran FileCheck twice, one time with the CHECK prefix and once with a custom `--check-prefix=CHECK-AFTER` which is a common trick to have more than one set of FileCheck directives in a single file.
> Yes. There is no problem to write test using only `CHECK` and `CHECK-NOT`, but as I said, in lldb-mi's output we can't find any info about hitting breakpoint, so the question is: is it enough to check that breakpoint was set to a selected target?
> in lldb-mi's output we can't find any info about hitting breakpoint,
Is that how the gdb/mi protocol is supposed to work or is that a bug or missing feature in lldb-mi?
> so the question is: is it enough to check that breakpoint was set to a selected target?
If that's just how the protocol works then we'll have to make do with what we got.
More information about the lldb-commits