[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

Leonard Mosescu via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jun 8 10:10:06 PDT 2018

I agree, checked in binaries are not always pretty. But some coverage
depends checked in binaries (or at very least is dramatically harder to get
the same thing from source)

Are we saying that sacrificing coverage to keep tests smaller should be the
default trade off?

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Zachary Turner via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> zturner added a comment.
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47708#1126669, @lemo wrote:
> > Doesn't the LIT based test drop the split-function case (originally
> >  produced with PGO)?
> >
> > Sorry for being late to the party, but it seems beneficial to have both
> >  *and* checked in binaries since in general they are complementary:
> checking
> >  against freshly built binaries only covers a matching set of toolchain
> >  components (in particular it's hard to cover the cross-targeting
> scenarios).
> >
> > Other than the inconvenience with Phabricator, is there a reason not to
> >  include the original tests as well? The size of the binaries?
> At least when it comes to checked in executables, we trigger virus
> scanners sometimes which is pretty annoying.  I don't mind a checked in
> PDB, but they get pretty big sometimes and you have to go out of your way
> to make them small by specifying things like `/nodefaultlib`.  But if you
> can get PDBs below about 200k, then checking them in might not be so bad.
> But I'd like to avoid checking in executables.
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D47708
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20180608/be111891/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-commits mailing list