t;
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
> Pavel
> > > Labath via lldb-dev
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 12:45 PM
> > > To: Leonard Mosescu
> > > Cc: aaron.lee.sm...@
ndation Collaborative Project
> > -Original Message-
> > From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
Pavel
> > Labath via lldb-dev
> > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 12:45 PM
> > To: Leonard Mosescu
> > Cc: aaron.lee.sm...@gmail.com; LLDB
Leonard Mosescu
> Cc: aaron.lee.sm...@gmail.com; LLDB
> Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] Proposal: Using LLD in tests
>
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 at 18:19, Leonard Mosescu
> wrote:
>
> >>the PDB tests under lit/SymbolFile/PDB need a linker to produce
> >> the
> program
>
> we have some good coverage there that our PDBs are "as good as" Microsoft
> PDBs, and in the future we have plans to have a debug info test suite that
> tests LLD-generated PDBs with Microsoft debuggers.
>
Thanks Zach. What I was asking is exactly the other half of this equation.
Testing LLDB
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 at 18:19, Leonard Mosescu wrote:
>>the PDB tests under lit/SymbolFile/PDB need a linker to produce the
program database
> With this proposal, would we preserve any coverage for MSVC produced
debug information?
Well.. the question there is what are you trying to test? I
We already don't really have any.
All of the makefiles that build the inferiors use a gcc style command line
syntax, and the way we made that work on Windows is to use clang for the
compiler. So MSVC is already out of the equation.
There may be one or two instances where we check in a PDB file,
>
> the PDB tests under lit/SymbolFile/PDB need a linker to produce the program
> database
With this proposal, would we preserve any coverage for MSVC produced debug
information?
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Greg Clayton via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 201
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Pavel Labath wrote:
>
> Yes, I considered the lld+Mach-O situation. I understand that it does not
> work very well, but I don't know what exactly that means.
>
> However, I am not sure that we even need a linker for Mach-O. As I
> understand it, in a darwin world
Yes, I considered the lld+Mach-O situation. I understand that it does not
work very well, but I don't know what exactly that means.
However, I am not sure that we even need a linker for Mach-O. As I
understand it, in a darwin world, the linker does not even touch the debug
info, and lldb is alread
The last I knew LLD doesn't work on mach-o very well, so be sure to not require
LLD for linking any Darwin executables.
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 6:42 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> currently we have a couple of tests, in-tree or under review, which are
> very close to
Hello all,
currently we have a couple of tests, in-tree or under review, which are
very close to being host-independent. The only part they are missing is the
ability to link a intermediate object file:
- the ppc64 test in https://reviews.llvm.org/D44437 needs a linker to
resolve relocations in th
11 matches
Mail list logo
