On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 6:14 PM Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote:
> Not at present, but you presumably know more about this than I do. Part > of the point of Greg's extracting the DWARF parser from lldb and making it > into it's own library in llvm was precisely so that somebody could then > write a simple wrapper tool that would poke it with not necessarily > complete but interesting canned bits of DWARF and see that it does the > right thing. I thought you were involved with the reviews for that work? Yep yep - though not necessarily clear on the bigger picture goals in terms of which components were going where in the long term. > I was not paying attention to the details of that effort as DWARF > parsing's not really my thing. > > Anyway, the extraction of the DWARF parser was Greg's last act before > leaving Apple, and the project stalled at that point. I don't imagine he > could have gotten that code into llvm without some testing, so the kind of > test you are thinking of should be done using whatever mechanism you guys > devised for the new llvm dwarf parser. Adrian - any chance something like the DwarfGenerator stuff in LLVM could be used to test this code? > Of course, it's less interesting to test the llvm version of the DWARF > parser if lldb's not using it, so for that to be directly relevant here > that piece of work would need to be done. > Perhaps - or reusing the same testing approach without that. Though I think this particular failure/fix was in a higher/lower different layer than the pure parsing stuff in LLVM, but I could be wrong - there's sufficient divergence it's not obvious from a few class names, etc, to tell how much overlap (& where) there is. > > Jim > > > > > On Jul 21, 2017, at 5:51 PM, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:05 PM Greg Clayton via Phabricator < > revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > > clayborg accepted this revision. > > clayborg added a comment. > > > > Looks like there already is a test case that was failing as Jim > mentioned. Accepting based on that. > > > > Ah, I was thinking more a test that would've failed when LLDB regressed > (regardless of whether Clang was still producing this DWARF or not) - does > LLDB have tests like that? (either binary, asm, or some other terse way of > writing DWARF directly to test "does LLDB do the right thing with this > DWARF" sort of tests?) > > > > > > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D35740 > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits