[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D13124: test runner: switch to pure-Python timeout mechanism

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

Can you rebase against ToT?  I'm having trouble applying the patch.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:00 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:

> tfiala added a comment.
>
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13124#254935, @tfiala wrote:
>
> > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13124#254900, @zturner wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, our desks were reconfigured over the weekend, so I just now got
> my
> > >  computer turned on.  I'm syncing code and hopefully will have a
> working
> > >  build soon.
> >
> >
> > Sounds good.  I expect you'll find a few things you'll want to
> add/adjust.  If you get those patches to me, I'll include them in the
> check-in.
>
>
> Also note the test code for this check-in assumes there is a python in the
> path when it builds the command to run the inferior test subject.  (This is
> the thing we run against to verify that the ProcessDriver --- aka child
> process runner with timeout support --- gets return codes, witnesses
> timeouts, witnesses children processes that choose to ignore soft terminate
> signals and gets the bad guy with a more lethal (hard) termination option,
> etc.).  You might need to tweak that in the test runner.  That python
> invocation doesn't require any special lldb support - it is just testing
> that a process can be launched, and that process happens to be a python
> interpreter session running the inferior.py test subject.  So I figured
> that was probably fine as is.
>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D13124
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20150928/3a190d73/attachment.html>