Do you just need a pdb, or does it really need to be a vs pdb? lld can generate high quality pdbs now. So it might be possible to use lld to link and produce a pdb when you run the test.
Pavel’s suggestion is equally viable, you can dump a pdb to yaml and convert it back to a pdb at test time. The real problem is the exe. It’s harder to generate exes at test time because we have to ensure that dependent libraries are present on the system. If it has to be an msvc generated pdb, can you elaborate on why? Tbh I’m not really against checking in pdbs. Exes I’d like to find a way to avoid checking in wherever possible though. And even then, sometimes I don’t have any better ideas other than compile and link before running the test On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:20 PM Aaron Smith via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > asmith added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47708#1123334, @labath wrote: > > > I have reverted this because of the broken tests. > > > > However, I have to also ask: isn't there better way to test this? (one > that does not depend on opaque checked-in binaries). On linux, I could > check-in a .s file which has the line table exactly as I want it and then > have the test assert that. Is there some suitable intermediate form here? > > > > It seems that lld tests use some yaml form to store pdb's. Is there any > chance we could do the same? > > > I wish these binaries didn’t exist too. Im not sure if the lld approach > works because I think we need the VS generated PDBs for function level > testing. Maybe Zachary as a better idea. > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D47708 > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
