[LLVMdev] DWARF 2/3 backwards compatibility?

Renato Golin rengolin at systemcall.org
Thu Oct 18 13:58:17 PDT 2012

On 18 October 2012 21:36, Robinson, Paul <Paul.Robinson at am.sony.com> wrote:
> Well, having IR-level testing tells you next to nothing as to what your
> program would actually do when you compile and run it.  But it seems
> to me that we have a huge pile of IR-level tests, so _somebody_ must
> think they are useful. :-)

When creating Dwarf tests I did it at all levels: IR checking for
metadata, ELF checking for Dwarf and GDB execution checking for
correct behaviour.

All that as LIT driven, so a "make check" would give me the results in
a few seconds, with the benefit of a good dev iteration, as David

Unfortunately, none of that was in the open, so I can't share... :(

> That said, what's easiest is probably to get some form of GDB bot up
> and running, and the benefit is likely to be worth the pain.

Since GDB already has a good and standard test infrastructure, it'd
likely get a good chunk of bad Dwarf our of the way before you start
worrying about Lauterbach's specifics.

Do you have a good (maybe open) Dwarf validation suite available?
There is no such thing as too many tests... ;)



More information about the llvm-dev mailing list