JDevlieghere added a comment. In D147606#4247462 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147606#4247462>, @jwnhy wrote:
> In D147606#4246832 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147606#4246832>, @JDevlieghere > wrote: > >> The change looks fine and regardless of whether this makes sense or even >> complies with the standard, we should be resilient against it. I would like >> to see a test though. > > Thanks a lot for the comment, I am new to lldb community, and got one thing a > bit silly to ask. > Up to now, a few patches I submitted is kind of "depending on the > compiler-generated" binary? > What am I supposed to do to **ensure the compiler generates these > "easy-to-fault" binaries in the test?** > > Like in this one, not every compiler will generate "empty ranges", and in the > other one that is "DW_OP_div"... Yes, this would require a test that checks in what the compiler generates (as opposed to the majority of our "API tests" that build test cases from source). This can either be an assembly file (something like `dwarf5-implicit-const.s`) or a YAML file created with `obj2yaml` (something like `section-overlap.yaml`). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147606/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147606 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
