[LLVMdev] RFC: Improving our DWARF (and ELF) emission testing capabilities
samsonov at google.com
Mon Jan 21 03:20:56 PST 2013
So, using llvm-dwarfdump (and, therefore, lib/DebugInfo) for testing leads
to the following:
if you extend debug info emitted by Clang/LLVM, you also have to fix
lib/DebugInfo to support
these extensions (looks like Eric was doing this in his DWARF5-related
changes). While this is
tiring and certainly slows down the development, this also helps to keep
the tools "in sync" in some sense.
As a "user" of lib/DebugInfo I find it pretty useful and it would be a pity
if it wouldn't be able to parse or
would lack important features of the code produced by LLVM itself.
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote:
>> >> > I'm fine with this as long as llvm-dwarfdump gets maintained.
>> >> >
>> >> I agree, and as I said in the original email, in the long term I
>> >> believe llvm-dwarfdump is the correct solution.
>> > The problem is that if no one is working on testing these sorts of
>> > with llvm-dwarfdump then it won't be maintained for this purpose.
>> > See
>> > elf-dump and people not expanding/fixing bugs in llvm-objdump and using
>> > for tests.
>> Can you clarify/elaborate on this last sentence?
> Sure. People are updating, modifying and adding new tests that use
> elf-dump and not updating, modifying or fixing llvm-objdump to test the
> same thing.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
Alexey Samsonov, MSK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev