[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 10:48:26 PDT 2018

So what's your take on this particular case? As far as I can see (please
correct me if I'm wrong), the LIT-only tests:

1. Don't cover the case where a function is split into disjoint regions,
2. Also don't cover the cross-targeting case (ex. the native PDB reader
hosted on Linux)
3. A bug in LLD might inadvertently make the tests pass w/o testing what
they are supposed to
   (let's say that it incorrectly ingores the hardcoded order and lays
everything contiguously)

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:10 AM Leonard Mosescu <mosescu at google.com>
> wrote:
>> 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?
> It's probably worth evaluating on a case by case basis.  Often time there
> are ways to use lower level LLVM tools like llvm-mc, yaml2obj, etc so that
> we can construct binaries on the fly which are reproducible.  In these
> cases we should check in the "meta-inputs" that allow us to reproducibly
> construct the test inputs on the fly.
> One can easily imagine the repository growing to many tens of gigabytes
> just due to test inputs, which is not really scalable.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20180608/54694cdb/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-commits mailing list