[lldb-dev] Failing LIT-based lldb-mi tests

[Александр Поляков via lldb-dev]

One important question: what do you mean talking about "block"? Does it
mean that SBTarget::Launch blocks the process and the user can't continue
working with this process until it stops?

сб, 11 авг. 2018 г. в 2:41, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com>:

> I was wondering how this worked in the regular SBAPI that we use for all
> the "normal" python-based LLDB tests. The implementation of
> SBProcess::Continue() for example calls Process::Resume() or
> Process::ResumeSynchronous() depending on whether synchronous mode is set
> or not.
> It's not immediately obvious to me whether -exec-run should wait until the
> process stopped before returning or whether -exec-step should wait until
> the process stopped before executing.
>
> Based on a cursory reading of the sources it seems like SBTarget::Launch
> should block until the process stopped when it is in synchronous mode. Can
> you confirm this? If that is the case, can you figure out why -exec-run
> does not inherit this behavior?
>
> -- adrian
>
> > On Aug 10, 2018, at 4:27 PM, Александр Поляков <polyakov.alx at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > AFAIK, there is no mechanism in lldb-mi to distinguish a command that
> expects a frame, so we need to modify each command manually. Am I right?
> > If so, I found the Process::WaitForProcessToStop method which we can add
> to SB API and use in lldb-mi.
> >
> > сб, 11 авг. 2018 г. в 0:50, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com>:
> > [adding lldb-dev back to the conversation]
> >
> > > On Aug 10, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Aug 10, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Александр Поляков <
> polyakov.alx at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I didn't check this yet. lldb-mi already runs LIT test in the
> --synchronous mode and the tests keep failing.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, that's why I said this:
> > >
> > >
> > >>> пт, 10 авг. 2018 г. в 23:57, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com>:
> > >>>
> > >>> Before we continue to discuss -wait-for-breakpoint; where you
> actually able to verify my suspicion that that is what is happening on the
> bots? Fred suggested to me offline today that in synchronous mode, perhaps
> -exec-* should be waiting for the process to be stopped, which would also
> sound like a reasonable and less invasive solution to the problem.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Instead of adding a new command to wait for the process to be stopped
> we might be able to just wait for the process to be stopped if in
> synchronous mode and we are running any commands that expect a frame (such
> as -exec-*).
> > >
> > > -- adrian
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexander
>
>

-- 
Alexander
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20180811/87131c06/attachment.html>