clayborg added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/unittests/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARFTests.cpp:369
+ EXPECT_EQ(section_sp->GetType(), eSectionTypeCode);
+}
----------------
labath wrote:
> clayborg wrote:
> > I would rather deal with an C++ unit test any day. Trying to track down
> > what set of convoluted command line commands reproduce some lit test is
> > quite annoying and takes me a lot more time to debug. I think this test is
> > targeted and tests what is needed. I would vote to keep this one over
> > converting to a text dump test. My main reasoning is that it isn't possible
> > to re-create a compilable test case that will survive any compiler that it
> > used (past, present and future), and all symbol resolution is done bone
> > using this call in all cases. When something goes wrong, very easy to
> > compile the binary and debug.
> If we put this up for a vote, I think you'd be in the minority. :)
>
> I'm not sure what you find hard about reproducing a lit test -- the commands
> to do that get printed as a part of the test. And most of the time you don't
> need to run all the command to reproduce it -- running the last one suffices
> as the intermediate files are left over from the previous test run. I
> consider the leftover temporaries as one of the best aspects of this method.
> In this case, I could for example run llvm-dwarfdump on the intermediate
> object file to better understand the input that lldb gets.
>
> Note that I am not advocating changing the test input to c++ source. I think
> the yaml is just fine (if I was writing it, I would probably have made that
> an assembler file). I just meant changing the test method by prefixing the
> yaml with something like:
> ```
> # RUN: yaml2obj %s > %t
> # RUN: %lldb %t -b -o "image lookup -f main.cpp -l 2" | FileCheck %s
> # CHECK: LineEntry: {{.*}}main.cpp:2 # or something like that
> ```
> If we put this up for a vote, I think you'd be in the minority. :)
>
> I'm not sure what you find hard about reproducing a lit test -- the commands
> to do that get printed as a part of the test. And most of the time you don't
> need to run all the command to reproduce it -- running the last one suffices
> as the intermediate files are left over from the previous test run. I
> consider the leftover temporaries as one of the best aspects of this method.
> In this case, I could for example run llvm-dwarfdump on the intermediate
> object file to better understand the input that lldb gets.
>
> Note that I am not advocating changing the test input to c++ source. I think
> the yaml is just fine (if I was writing it, I would probably have made that
> an assembler file). I just meant changing the test method by prefixing the
> yaml with something like:
> ```
> # RUN: yaml2obj %s > %t
> # RUN: %lldb %t -b -o "image lookup -f main.cpp -l 2" | FileCheck %s
> # CHECK: LineEntry: {{.*}}main.cpp:2 # or something like that
> ```
If it is that easy, then sounds good. I was thinking you were asking him to add
new functionality for dumping something.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87172/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87172
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
