Tools that use the CommandLine library currently exit with an error
when invoked with -version or -help. This is unusual and non-standard,
so we'll fix them to exit successfully instead.
I don't expect that anyone relies on the current behaviour, so this
should be a fairly safe change.
llvm-svn: 202530
I carefully reviewed exactly how the IOHandlers interact and found places where we weren't properly controlling things. There should be no overlapping prompts and all output should now come out in a controlled fashion.
<rdar://problem/16111293>
llvm-svn: 202525
I suspect I may have misrun the test previously for check-in
r202456 re: pr15258. This test fails consistently on my end.
I changed the test to expected failure on Linux.
llvm-svn: 202517
TestRegisterVariables.test_with_dwarf_and_run_command was being
skipped on Linux due to issues with clang. I converted it to a
@expectedFailureClang and no longer skip on Linux.
llvm-svn: 202515
TestConstVariables.py was disabled on Linux and marked as
unconditional expected failure. This change removes the Linux disable
and makes the expected failure conditional on using clang. The test
runs fine on gcc-built lldb.
llvm-svn: 202514
This test passed 50 out of 50 times for me on Unbuntu 12.04 LTS x86_64
with lldb built using gcc 4.8.2 and July 2013 libedit.
This is related to:
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16170
llvm-svn: 202512
Related to this bug:
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16714
On TOT lldb svn r202507, I found several of the tests disabled within
TestConcurrentEvents.py to run fine, and several of them to fail 100%
of the time on my system (25 out of 25 times).
This changes the following tests for Linux:
Enables (these all work consistently):
* test_many_watchpoints_dwarf
* test_signal_watch_break_dwarf (line 250)
* test_signal_watch_break_dwarf (line 260 - same named test?)
* test_crash_with_watchpoint_dwarf
* test_crash_with_watchpoint_breakpoint_signal_dwarf
* test_delayed_crash_with_breakpoint_watchpoint_dwarf
Marks as expected failure (these all fail consistently):
* test_many_watchpoints_dwarf
* test_watch_break_dwarf
* test_delay_watch_break_dwarf
* test_watch_break_dwarf_delay
* test_signal_watch_dwarf
* test_delay_signal_watch_dwarf
* test_signal_delay_watch_dwarf
* test_two_breakpoints_one_watchpoint_dwarf
* test_breakpoints_delayed_breakpoint_one_watchpoint_dwarf
* test_two_watchpoint_threads_dwarf
* test_watchpoint_with_delay_watchpoint_threads_dwarf
* test_two_watchpoints_one_breakpoint_dwarf
* test_two_watchpoints_one_delay_breakpoint_dwarf
* test_watchpoint_delay_watchpoint_one_breakpoint_dwarf
* test_two_watchpoints_one_signal_dwarf
* test_signal_watch_break_dwarf
llvm-svn: 202511
Related to this bug:
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15037
Previously this was marked as skipped. I tried running it 10 times in
a row and it failed every time. Switched it to XFAIL.
llvm-svn: 202506
This centralizes the Makefile handling of -install_name and -rpath. It also
moves the cmake build to using @rpath. The reason being that libclang needs it,
and it works for everything else.
A followup patch will move clang to using this and then there will be a single
point to edit to support other systems.
llvm-svn: 202499
A lot of this is writing down common knowledge and things often
communicated on mailing lists and in discussions. It could live in the
Programmer's Manual alternatively, but that felt slightly less
well-fitting.
It also includes (and was motivated by) the section on the relevant
language standards for LLVM and the specific features that will be
enabled with the switch to C++11.
With this, all of the documentation for the C++11 switch is, I think, in
place. I plan to flip the switch RSN. =]
llvm-svn: 202497
X86Operand is extracted into individual header, because it allows to create an
arbitrary memory operand and append it to MCInst. It'll be reused in X86 inline
assembly instrumentation.
Patch by Yuri Gorshenin.
llvm-svn: 202496
standards.
It claims the document intentionally doesn't give fixed standards for
brace placement or spacing, and then the document goes on to do
precisely that in several places. Instead, try to highlight that even
these rules are simply *guidance* which may be trumped by some other
circumstance or the local conventions of code.
I'm not trying to change the thrust of this part of the document, and if
folks think this does so, I'm happy to re-wordsmith it. I just don't
want it to be so self-contradicting.
llvm-svn: 202495
Greg Clayton