labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47708#1124429, @zturner wrote:
> 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
I guess that part that makes generating the exe during test tricky is the
feedback loop needed for PGO. I don't know enough about the windows ecosystem
to tell if there is a different way to generate these kinds of split line
tables (on linux I can think of a several).
I suppose the reason you can't do the same yaml2obj trick on the .exe is
because yaml2obj does not support serializing exe's yet?
================
Comment at: unittests/SymbolFile/PDB/Inputs/test-pdb-splitted-function.cpp:8-9
+
+#include <cmath>
+#include <iostream>
+
----------------
Could we shrink the size of these binaries by not using c and c++ standard
library features?
================
Comment at: unittests/SymbolFile/PDB/Inputs/test-pdb-splitted-function.cpp:11-27
+int main()
+{
+ auto b = false;
+ for (auto i = 1; i <= 1024; i++)
+ {
+ if (b)
+ {
----------------
Could you clang-format this patch?
================
Comment at: unittests/SymbolFile/PDB/SymbolFilePDBTests.cpp:375-398
+ uint32_t count =
+ symfile->ResolveSymbolContext(source_file, 0, true, scope, sc_list);
+ EXPECT_EQ(1u, count);
+
+ SymbolContext sc;
+ EXPECT_TRUE(sc_list.GetContextAtIndex(0, sc));
+
----------------
I think these kinds of checks would be a nice fit for a `lldb-test symbols
--verify` option.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47708
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
