[PATCH] D141824: [clang-repl] Add a command to load dynamic libraries

Stefan Gränitz via Phabricator via cfe-commits cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jan 23 06:43:59 PST 2023


sgraenitz added a comment.

Thanks for working on this! It looks like this is going to be the clang-repl equivalent for Cling's `.L` command. Do you think we can get test coverage for it?

So far, the only tests I found for `libclangInterpreter` are unit tests in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/main/clang/unittests/Interpreter -- e.g. there is a test for the `%undo` command. I guess the `%lib` command would be a good candidate for a LIT test, because it requires a dynamic library to load from disk. The tests for `.L` in Cling may give you a hint on how this could look like: https://github.com/root-project/cling/tree/master/test/LibraryCall



================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Interpreter/Interpreter.h:62
   const CompilerInstance *getCompilerInstance() const;
-  const llvm::orc::LLJIT *getExecutionEngine() const;
+  llvm::Expected<llvm::orc::LLJIT &> GetExecutionEngine();
+
----------------
Do we really want these functions capitalized? IIRC in the clang code-base they are used to highlight core API functions. It looks like these two functions are only used as helpers inside `Interpreter` itself.


================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Interpreter/Interpreter.h:78
 
+  /// Link a dyanmic library
+  llvm::Error LoadDynamicLibrary(const char *name);
----------------
Typo `dynamic`


================
Comment at: clang/lib/Interpreter/Interpreter.cpp:223
 
+llvm::Error Interpreter::CreateExecutor() {
+  const clang::TargetInfo &TI =
----------------
Factoring out this function looks like an independent change. Is it related to the load-library command in any way?


================
Comment at: clang/tools/clang-repl/ClangRepl.cpp:126
       }
+      if (Line->rfind(R"(%lib )", 0) == 0) {
+        if (auto Err = Interp->LoadDynamicLibrary(Line->data() + 5)) {
----------------
I see this is analog to existing code, but is there a good reason for using the multi-line string syntax here?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D141824/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D141824



More information about the cfe-commits mailing list