labath marked an inline comment as done.
labath added a comment.
In D79491#2024647 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79491#2024647>, @djtodoro wrote:
> Thanks a lot for this!
>
> > Nevertheless, I am still interested in making assembly-based tests for this
> > (and similar features) because it enables testing scenarios that we could
> > not get (reliably or at all) a compiler to produce.
>
> I also think this would be more stable if we can make assembler-based tests
> (but we'll need to address all archs from {x86_64, arm, aarch64}).
> I am just wondering, what are the obstacles for writing the assembler-based
> tests? Is it LLDB testing infrastructure or writing tests itself?
A bit of both, maybe. Writing a test which works on a single target (os+arch)
was relatively easy (for me, because I've done a lot of this stuff lately,
maybe not so easy for others), but the difficulties started when I wanted to
make that test run on other oses (which have different asm dialects). I was ok
with leaving the test x86-specific, since most developers have an x86 machine
and there is nothing arch-specific about this functionality. However, I did not
want to restrict the test to any single OS, and since this test requires a
running program, the asm needed to match what the host expects.
I did manage to ifdef around the asm platform quirks, but I still haven't
managed to get the darwin linker to recognize my hand-written dwarf. I am sure
this can be fixed (I think it's because I reduced the input too much), and I
do want to try it out, but I am not sure the result will be something we can
recommend as a general practice.
A different way to address this would be to remove the requirement for a
running process. The test doesn't really require that, it just needs a
relatively complex static snapshot of the process. A core file is just that,
but we currently don't have any good way of creating such core files. If we had
that, we could run this test over a core file. That would still be platform
specific, but then it wouldn't matter (so much) because it wouldn't be tied to
the host platform.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79491/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79491
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
