v.g.vassilev added a comment. Thanks for working on this, looks like we are heading in a good direction!
================ Comment at: clang/test/Interpreter/dynamic-library.cpp:1 +// RUN: head -n 7 %s | %clang -xc++ -o %T/libdynamic-library-test.so -fPIC -shared - +int ultimate_answer = 0; ---------------- sgraenitz wrote: > The use of `head` and `tail` here is a creative solution, but I wonder how > well it scales for similar cases in the future in case this becomes a role > model. We have this situation a lot in LLDB: compile an input file and use > the output in a RUN line. It typically uses separate input files for such > purposes (note that "Inputs" folders must be excluded from test discovery > somewhere in lit config), e.g.: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/release/16.x/lldb/test/Shell/Breakpoint/jit-loader_jitlink_elf.test > > What do you think? I agree with that. I've seen that some clang tests surround the code in question with `#ifdef LIB` and then in the invocation they add `-DLIB`. ================ Comment at: clang/tools/clang-repl/ClangRepl.cpp:126 } + if (Line->rfind(R"(%lib )", 0) == 0) { + if (auto Err = Interp->LoadDynamicLibrary(Line->data() + 5)) { ---------------- argentite wrote: > sgraenitz wrote: > > I see this is analog to existing code, but is there a good reason for using > > the multi-line string syntax here? > Yeah I am confused as well. But I tried to maintain the style. Independently, I think these commands should be available via pragma directives as well. Maybe in a separate revision we should create something like `pragma clang-repl/clang-interpreter load library name`. That would allow people to use that in their "scripts" which can be quite useful. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D141824/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D141824 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
