Summary: Moves lldbsuite tests to lldb/test/API.
This is a largely mechanical change, moved with the following steps:
```
rm lldb/test/API/testcases
mkdir -p lldb/test/API/{test_runner/test,tools/lldb-{server,vscode}}
mv lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/test_runner/test lldb/test/API/test_runner
for d in $(find lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/* -maxdepth 0 -type d | egrep -v "make|plugins|test_runner|tools"); do mv $d lldb/test/API; done
for d in $(find lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/tools/lldb-vscode -maxdepth 1 -mindepth 1 | grep -v ".py"); do mv $d lldb/test/API/tools/lldb-vscode; done
for d in $(find lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/tools/lldb-server -maxdepth 1 -mindepth 1 | egrep -v "gdbremote_testcase.py|lldbgdbserverutils.py|socket_packet_pump.py"); do mv $d lldb/test/API/tools/lldb-server; done
```
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/__init__.py and lldb/test/API/lit.cfg.py were also updated with the new directory structure.
Reviewers: labath, JDevlieghere
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71151
By clearing the recognizers before starting the test, we ensure that the
recognizers that get initialized when lldb starts won't alter the
expected results of this test (i.e. recognizer index).
Signed-off-by: Med Ismail Bennani <medismail.bennani@gmail.com>
Summary:
To my knowledge we don't actually use or need these rules. And if we need them then
there is probably a better way to implement this than having all these random regexes.
Reviewers: labath, JDevlieghere
Reviewed By: labath, JDevlieghere
Subscribers: jingham, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74126
My refactor caused some changes in error reporting that TestAddDsymCommand.py
was checking, so this restores some of the changes to preserve the old
behavior and to un-xfail the affected test.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74001
Re-landing this now that (hopefully) all the failures this caused on the
bots have been addressed.
This patch changes the behavior of the substrs argument to self.expect.
Currently, the elements of substrs are unordered and as long as the
string appears in the output, the assertion passes.
We can be more precise by requiring that the substrings be ordered in
the way they appear. My hope is that this will make it harder to
accidentally pass a check because a string appears out of order.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73766
Specializations of the Platform class print the kernel after calling the
super method. By printing the kernel at the end in the super class, we
guarantee the order is the same on different platforms.
Currently the substrs parameter takes a list of strings that need to be
found but the ordering isn't checked. D73766 might change that so this
changes a several tests so that the order of the strings in the substrs
list is in the order in which they appear in the output.
Currently the substrs parameter takes a list of strings that need to be
found but the ordering isn't checked. D73766 might change that so this
changes a several tests so that the order of the strings in the substrs
list is in the order in which they appear in the output.
Currently the substrs parameter takes a list of strings
that need to be found but the ordering isn't checked. D73766
might change that so this changes a several tests so that
the order of the strings in the substrs list is in the order
in which they appear in the output.
We want that the *.py names for the tests have unique names but
the current ones are sometimes very simple (e.g., "TestUniquePtr.py")
and could collide with unrelated tests. This just gives all these
tests a "FromStdModule" suffix to make these collisions less likely.
Summary:
Add setting target.auto-install-main-executable that controls whether
the main executable should be automatically installed when connected to
a remote platform even if it does not have an explicit install path
specified. The default is true as the current behaviour.
Reviewers: omjavaid, JDevlieghere, srhines, labath, clayborg
Reviewed By: clayborg
Subscribers: kevin.brodsky, lldb-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71761
Summary:
Add setting target.auto-install-main-executable that controls whether
the main executable should be automatically installed when connected to
a remote platform even if it does not have an explicit install path
specified. The default is true as the current behaviour.
Reviewers: omjavaid, JDevlieghere, srhines, labath, clayborg
Reviewed By: clayborg
Subscribers: kevin.brodsky, lldb-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71761
Summary:
CXXRecordDecls that have a move constructor but no copy constructor need to
have their implicit copy constructor marked as deleted (see C++11 [class.copy]p7, p18)
Currently we don't do that when building an AST with ClangASTContext which causes
Sema to realise that the AST is malformed and asserting when trying to create an implicit
copy constructor for us in the expression:
```
Assertion failed: ((data().DefaultedCopyConstructorIsDeleted || needsOverloadResolutionForCopyConstructor())
&& "Copy constructor should not be deleted"), function setImplicitCopyConstructorIsDeleted, file include/clang/AST/DeclCXX.h, line 828.
```
In the test case there is a class `NoCopyCstr` that should have its copy constructor marked as
deleted (as it has a move constructor). When we end up trying to tab complete in the
`IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr` constructor, Sema realises that the `IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr`
has no implicit copy constructor and tries to create one for us. It then realises that
`NoCopyCstr` also has no copy constructor it could find via lookup. However because we
haven't marked the FieldDecl as having a deleted copy constructor the
`needsOverloadResolutionForCopyConstructor()` returns false and the assert fails.
`needsOverloadResolutionForCopyConstructor()` would return true if during the time we
added the `NoCopyCstr` FieldDecl to `IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr` we would have actually marked
it as having a deleted copy constructor (which would then mark the copy constructor of
`IndirectlyDeletedCopyCstr ` as needing overload resolution and Sema is happy).
This patch sets the correct mark when we complete our CXXRecordDecls (which is the time when
we know whether a copy constructor has been declared). In theory we don't have to do this if
we had a Sema around when building our debug info AST but at the moment we don't have this
so this has to do the job for now.
Reviewers: shafik
Reviewed By: shafik
Subscribers: aprantl, JDevlieghere, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72694
Summary:
This patch adds a new function to lldbtest: `expect_expr`. This function is supposed to replace the current approach
of calling `expect`/`runCmd` with `expr`, `p` etc.
`expect_expr` allows evaluating expressions and matching their value/summary/type/error message without
having to do any string matching that might allow unintended passes (e.g., `self.expect("expr 3+4", substrs=["7"])`
can unexpectedly pass for results like `(Class7) $0 = 7`, `(int) $7 = 22`, `(int) $0 = 77` and so on).
This only uses the function in a few places to test and demonstrate it. I'll migrate the tests in follow up commits.
Reviewers: JDevlieghere, shafik, labath
Reviewed By: labath
Subscribers: christof, abidh, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70314
When trying to interpret an expression with a function call, if the
process hasn't been launched, the expression fails to be interpreted
and the user gets the following error message:
```error: Can't run the expression locally```
This message doesn't explain why the expression failed to be
interpreted, that's why this patch improves the error message that is
displayed when trying to run an expression while no process is running.
rdar://11991708
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72510
Signed-off-by: Med Ismail Bennani <medismail.bennani@gmail.com>
Summary:
This just adds `NO_DEBUG_INFO_TESTCASE` to tests that don't really exercise anything debug information specific
and therefore don't need to be rerun for all debug information variants.
Reviewers: labath, jingham, aprantl, mib, jfb
Reviewed By: aprantl
Subscribers: dexonsmith, JDevlieghere, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72447
The command here failed due to the type in 'create' but the expect
did not actually check for the error message. This fixes the typo
and adds a check for the actuall error message we should see.
Looking at a sometimes-passing test case on a platform
where random values were being returned - sometimes
the expected digit ('1' or '2') would be included in the
random returned value. Add a prefix to reduce the likelihood of
this a bit.
Currently, there is no option to delete all the watchpoint without LLDB
asking for a confirmation. Besides making the watchpoint delete command
homogeneous with the breakpoint delete command, this option could also
become handy to trigger automated watchpoint deletion i.e. using
breakpoint actions.
rdar://42560586
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72096
Signed-off-by: Med Ismail Bennani <medismail.bennani@gmail.com>
Currently, there is no option to delete all the watchpoint without LLDB
asking for a confirmation. Besides making the watchpoint delete command
homogeneous with the breakpoint delete command, this option could also
become handy to trigger automated watchpoint deletion i.e. using
breakpoint actions.
rdar://42560586
Signed-off-by: Med Ismail Bennani <medismail.bennani@gmail.com>
Summary:
We currently don't set access specifiers for function template declarations. This seems to be fine
as long as the function template is not declared inside any record in which case Clang asserts
with the following once we try to query it's access:
```
Assertion failed: (Access != AS_none && "Access specifier is AS_none inside a record decl"), function AccessDeclContextSanity,
```
This patch just marks these function template declarations as public to make Clang happy.
Reviewers: shafik, teemperor
Reviewed By: teemperor
Subscribers: JDevlieghere, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71909
Now that we are building the python bindings on Windows once more, the
extended testsuite is running. Mark a few failing tests and skip a few
tests which hang. This should at least bring the bot back to green
without reverting the Python changes which are an improvement for the
build system and enable another ~35% of the test suite which was
previously disabled.
This patch adds skipif decorator to TestWatchLocationWithWatchSet.py.
Decorator will trigger for aarch64-linux as this test passes randomly
causing buildbot failure.
This fix was motivated by a crashes in expression parsing during code generation in which we had a RecordDecl that had incomplete FieldDecl. During code generation when computing the layout for the RecordDecl we crash because we have several incomplete FieldDecl.
This fixes the issue by assuring that during ImportDefinition(...) for a RecordDecl we also import the definitions for each FieldDecl.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71378
If you don't do this you end up running arbitrary code with
only one thread allowed to run, which can cause deadlocks.
<rdar://problem/56422478>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71440
Summary:
A lot of our tests copied the setUp code from our TestSampleTest.py:
```
def setUp(self):
# Call super's setUp().
TestBase.setUp(self)
```
This code does nothing unless we actually do any setUp work in there, so let's remove all these method definitions.
Reviewers: labath, JDevlieghere
Reviewed By: labath
Subscribers: lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71454
Summary:
A lot of tests do this trick but the vast majority of them don't even call `print()`.
Most of this patch was generated by a script that just looks at all the files and deletes the line if there is no `print (` or `print(` anywhere else in the file.
I checked the remaining tests manually and deleted the import if we never call print (but instead do stuff like `expr print(...)` and similar false-positives).
I also corrected the additional empty lines after the import in the files that I manually edited.
Reviewers: JDevlieghere, labath, jfb
Reviewed By: labath
Subscribers: dexonsmith, wuzish, nemanjai, kbarton, christof, arphaman, abidh, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71452
