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
This test streamlines our use of variables that are expected by
Makefile.rules throughout the test suite. Mostly it replaced
potentially dangerous overrides and updates of variables like CFLAGS
with safe assignments to variables reserved for this purpose like
CFLAGS_EXTRAS.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67984
llvm-svn: 372795
Summary:
Instead of each test case knowing its depth relative to the test root,
we can just have dotest add the folder containing Makefile.rules to the
include path.
This was motivated by r370616, though I have been wanting to do this
ever since we moved to building tests out-of-tree.
The only manually modified files in this patch are lldbinline.py and
plugins/builder_base.py. The rest of the patch has been produced by this
shell command:
find . \( -name Makefile -o -name '*.mk' \) -exec sed --in-place -e '/LEVEL *:\?=/d' -e '1,2{/^$/d}' -e 's,\$(LEVEL)/,,' {} +
Reviewers: teemperor, aprantl, espindola, jfb
Subscribers: emaste, javed.absar, arichardson, christof, arphaman, lldb-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67083
llvm-svn: 370845
After landing r341457, we started seeing a failure on the swift-lldb
bots. The change was correct and pretty straightforward, a DW_OP_constu
was replaced with DW_OP_lit23, the value remaining identical.
0x000000f4: DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_location (0x00000000
[0x0000000100000a51, 0x0000000100000d47): DW_OP_lit23, DW_OP_stack_value)
DW_AT_name ("number")
However, this broke LLDB.
(Int) number = <extracting data from value failed>
The value was read correctly, but apparently the value's type was different.
When reading a constu it was reading a uint64 (m_type = e_ulonglong) while for
the literal, it got a signed int (m_type = e_sint). This change makes sure we
read the value as an unsigned.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51730
llvm-svn: 342142
