Details
- Reviewers
chaoren sivachandra vharron ovyalov - Commits
- rG4e0587d26a34: xfail tests that failed with clang-3.7, gcc4.8.2 and on i386 to get buildbot…
rLLDB233157: xfail tests that failed with clang-3.7, gcc4.8.2 and on i386 to get buildbot…
rL233157: xfail tests that failed with clang-3.7, gcc4.8.2 and on i386 to get buildbot…
Diff Detail
Event Timeline
List of ignored tests,
For clang>=3.6,
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestCPPThis.py
For gcc,
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestMiBreak.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestPluginCommands.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestRegisterVariables.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestTargetWatchAddress.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestTypedefArray.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestWatchLocation.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestWatchLocationWithWatchSet.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestWatchpointSetErrorCases.py
For i386,
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestDataFormatterStdVBool.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestMiExec.py
FAIL: LLDB (suite):: TestNoreturnUnwind.py
My comments are not just for the author, but also for other reviewers on this change.
test/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libstdcpp/vbool/TestDataFormatterStdVBool.py | ||
---|---|---|
27 | This and similar comments attached to expectedFailurei386 below are confusing. Perhaps s/x86_64/i386 ? Even then, seems redundant. Another note: Tamas has a fix for this approved. He might land it any time soon. So, may be observe the bot after his fix lands and take out the xfail decorator if the test starts passing? | |
test/lang/cpp/this/TestCPPThis.py | ||
25 | Why do we have a bug number only for this? Also, seems like the right tracking bug number is 19893491. Unrelated: If we should be putting internal bug numbers at all, could we just put http://b/<bugnumber> similar to how apple puts links to rdar bugs? |
Oh, another point: The right subscribing list for this change is lldb-commits and not llvm-commits.
test/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libstdcpp/vbool/TestDataFormatterStdVBool.py | ||
---|---|---|
27 | Suggested replacement comment # failing config: i386 binary running on lldb built for ubuntu 14.04 x86_64 | |
test/lang/cpp/this/TestCPPThis.py | ||
25 | Yeah, let's put llvm bugzilla urls here only, try to keep it open. |
test/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libstdcpp/vbool/TestDataFormatterStdVBool.py | ||
---|---|---|
27 | The test was compiled for i386, but failed when running on x86_64 ubuntu system. It may or may not fail on actual i386 system, i didn't run this test on i386 system. | |
test/lang/cpp/this/TestCPPThis.py | ||
25 | I agree that we do not include internal bug numbers. I put bug number for this one, only because we need the second parameter. And currently expectedFailureClang doesn't work if the first argument is skipped. |
This and similar comments attached to expectedFailurei386 below are confusing. Perhaps s/x86_64/i386 ? Even then, seems redundant.
Another note: Tamas has a fix for this approved. He might land it any time soon. So, may be observe the bot after his fix lands and take out the xfail decorator if the test starts passing?