lldb-test doesn’t actually exercise any of this. It’s a pretty new addition and doesn’t even support pdb yet as far as I know. So when you say it fails without the other changes, but passes with this, I think you must be talking about some test that runs via check-lldb, or some unittest.
To be clear, I’m talking about the executable lldb-test.exe, which was recently introduced as a way to run FileCheck tests. I was thinking you could add a flag to it and call it as lldb-test.exe symbol -functions foo.exe And have it just print function signatures and FileCheck the output for a function you’ve written that takes no arguments. That should crash without this patch but succeed with this patch alone right? Since lldb-test is a tool whose sole purpose is printing stuff for testing purposes, the format isn’t too important, the important thing is just that it provides a really easy avenue for exercising this code. LMK if this makes sense On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:53 PM Aaron Smith via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > asmith added a comment. > > This fix is part of a larger set of changes to retrieve the type for a > function signature and I don't see how to test for this without those > changes. With all the other changes, lldb-test fails without this fix and > passes with it. So it's implicitly already tested. > > > Repository: > rL LLVM > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D41427 > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
