search for: runlin

...compile(r"^([A-Z]+[a-z]+)+$"), # FooBar re.compile(r"^[a-z]+([_-][a-z]+[0-9]*)+$"), # foo_bar re.compile(r"^[a-z]+[0-9]*$"), # foo re.compile(r"^[A-Z]$"), # foo re.compile(r"^_.+?_$") ] def extract_valid_prefixes(self, runlines): valid = set() for runline in runlines: prefixes = self.check_prefix_re.findall(runline) if len(prefixes) > 0: valid |= set(prefixes) elif 'FileCheck' in runline: valid.add('CHECK') return valid def is_prefix(self, str): if...

...lain why it wouldn't be possible to write a wrapper (in JavaScript) that interprets the 3ish gdb commands used by the tests in terms of WinDbg? Similar to how LLDB is supported? > > > I can think of a couple of reasons: > > 1) We're already going to need entirely different runlines. clang and clang-cl don't use the same command line options, or for that matter even styles. I'm not familiar with clang-cl so please bear with me if this is a stupid question: Is clang-cl just an MSVC compatible driver? Can you not produce the same result by using the "standard&qu...

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:37 AM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > To be clear, the tests I'm proposing will have no resemblance whatsoever to GDB, so I would be intentionally forking the set of tests in this regards. So there would very clearly be a paradigm shift in writing CodeView debug info tests (which would be written in JavaScript using

...t be possible to write a wrapper (in JavaScript) that interprets the >> 3ish gdb commands used by the tests in terms of WinDbg? Similar to how LLDB >> is supported? >> >> > I can think of a couple of reasons: > > 1) We're already going to need entirely different runlines. clang and > clang-cl don't use the same command line options, or for that matter even > styles. > > > I'm not familiar with clang-cl so please bear with me if this is a stupid > question: Is clang-cl just an MSVC compatible driver? Can you not produce > the same res...

...pper (in JavaScript) that interprets the >>> 3ish gdb commands used by the tests in terms of WinDbg? Similar to how LLDB >>> is supported? >>> >>> >> I can think of a couple of reasons: >> >> 1) We're already going to need entirely different runlines. clang and >> clang-cl don't use the same command line options, or for that matter even >> styles. >> >> >> I'm not familiar with clang-cl so please bear with me if this is a stupid >> question: Is clang-cl just an MSVC compatible driver? Can you not p...