[PATCH] [dwarfdump] Print the name for referenced specification of abstract_origin DIEs.

[Eric Christopher]

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2014, at 4:06 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Frederic Riss <friss at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> ================
>> Comment at: test/DebugInfo/Inputs/gmlt.ll:46
>> @@ -45,3 +45,3 @@
>>
>> -; CHECK: [[F3_ABS_DEF:.*]]:  DW_TAG_subprogram
>> +; CHECK: DW_TAG_subprogram
>>  ; CHECK-NEXT:     DW_AT_name {{.*}} "f3"
>> ----------------
>> dblaikie wrote:
>> > Not sure - might even be worth dropping these abstract subprograms
>> > entirely when they're not checking anything interesting (just the name is
>> > being checked by the abstract_definition check you modified below). *shrug*
>> > dunno.
>> Unfortunately, in some test cases they have to stay because they 'consume'
>> a part of the file. If I had removed this one, then the next TAG_subprogram
>> would match the abstract DIE and the test would fail. This is one of the
>> biggest shortcomings of testing the Dwarf contents with FileCheck IMHO.
>
>
> Agreed - usually the way I do this is just to skip over the unintersting
> tags as quickly as possible (you'll see a few test cases that just hawe
> "CHECK: DW_TAG_subprogram" three times in a row, etc). Open to ideas on the
> best way to do that. Perhaps they sometimes merit comments, or not, perhaps
> sometimes they could just be a "CHECK: DW_TAG" to even more opaquely skip
> over uninteresting tags.
>
>
> At some point it might make sense to either make llvm-dwardump also emit a
> syntax that is more amenable to FileCheck (one TAG per line), or the other
> way round.
>

Seems reasonable. Each child gets a line? Probably wouldn't want it
for anything but machine based consumption, but it could be handy.

-eric

> -- adrian
>
>
>>
>>
>> ================
>> Comment at: test/DebugInfo/X86/inline-member-function.ll:24
>> @@ +23,3 @@
>> +; CHECK: DW_AT_specification {{.*}} "_ZN3foo4funcEi"
>> +; CHECK-NOT: NULL
>> +; CHECK-NOT: TAG
>> ----------------
>> dblaikie wrote:
>> > Could write this as {{NULL|TAG}} (& update the other one nearby to do
>> > that for consistency). If you like.
>> Will do
>>
>> ================
>> Comment at: test/DebugInfo/X86/inline-seldag-test.ll:14
>> @@ -13,3 +13,1 @@
>>
>> -; CHECK: [[F:.*]]: DW_TAG_subprogram
>> -; CHECK-NOT: DW_TAG
>> ----------------
>> dblaikie wrote:
>> > I see you dropped the abs def checking in this case - why this case &
>> > not others?
>> Because in this case, noone else tries to match a TAG_subprogram, the test
>> bellow is for an inline_subroutine.
>>
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D5466
>>
>>
>
>