[llvm-dev] Status of debuginfo-tests

Zachary Turner via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Sep 7 12:01:34 PDT 2017

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:49 AM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:37 AM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> To be clear, the tests I'm proposing will have no resemblance whatsoever
> to GDB, so I would be intentionally forking the set of tests in this
> regards.  So there would very clearly be a paradigm shift in writing
> CodeView debug info tests (which would be written in JavaScript using
> WinDbg specific debugger commands) and DWARF debug info tests (which would
> be written in whatever / using GDB style commands)
> That sounds like an unfortunate direction. Can you explain why it wouldn't
> be possible to write a wrapper (in JavaScript) that interprets the 3ish gdb
> commands used by the tests in terms of WinDbg? Similar to how LLDB is
> supported?
I can think of a couple of reasons:

1) We're already going to need entirely different runlines.  clang and
clang-cl don't use the same command line options, or for that matter even

2) The output format is going to be different.  whereas the current tests
look for things like

// CHECK: ${{[0-9]+}} =
// CHECK:  Data ={{.*}} 0x0{{(0*)}}
// CHECK:  Kind = 2142

In WinDbg this is going to be more like:

Local var @ 0x6ffa50 Type SVal

   +0x000 Data             : (null)    +0x004 Kind             : 0x85e

So we're also going to need different check lines.

At this point, the only similarities in the PDB / DWARF tests is going
to be the source code, as I don't see an easy way to automatically
translate command lines, input commands, and output text.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170907/37adae33/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list