[llvm-dev] Status of debuginfo-tests
Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Sep 8 11:37:01 PDT 2017
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:46 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
> Let me say up front that I sympathize deeply with the problem; debug
> info is an interface, and it is frequently unclear whether the goal of
> some bit of work is to test the producer or test the consumer of the
> interface. In fact we end up using the producer to test the consumer,
> and (in the case at hand) using the consumer to test the producer.
> There are distinct analogies to testing compilers by seeing what the
> linker thinks, and testing linkers by seeing whether they can handle
> what the compiler produces.
> > I understand the desire to keep them as similar as possible, but I'm
> > still not really sold that massaging fickle text output into a different
> > text format is going to make things more scalable. I'd like there to be
> > as few layers of text processing as possible.
> If the text output is fickle, then I'd think hiding the fickleness behind
> a wrapper we control would be preferable to updating dozens of tests when
> something changes. Or if a debugger changes its presentation in version
> N+1, but people are still running tests with version N, persuading the
> wrapper to handle both would be less overall work than making every test
> accommodate both formats.
But that's just my point. There are clearly going to be tests where both
formats don't even make sense because it's testing something specific to
one debugger. What if I want to test that we output correct exception
information, so I send a .exr command to the debugger and get back this:
0:000> .exr -1ExceptionAddress: 77a6db8b
(ntdll!LdrpDoDebuggerBreak+0x0000002b) ExceptionCode: 80000003
(Break instruction exception) ExceptionFlags:
00000000NumberParameters: 1 Parameter: 00000000
What if I want to test that that the debugger can print a valid stack
trace, so I send a kv command and get back this?
# ChildEBP RetAddr Args to Child *00* 0198fa4c 77a2f5ca
55fe0b87 00000000 00000000 ntdll!LdrpDoDebuggerBreak+0x2b (FPO:
[Non-Fpo])*01* 0198fc8c 77a18a42 55fe0bef 00000000 00000000
ntdll!LdrpInitializeProcess+0x1967 (FPO: [Non-Fpo])*02* 0198fce4
77a1886c 00000000 bad81aba 00000000 ntdll!_LdrpInitialize+0x180 (FPO:
[Non-Fpo])*03* 0198fcf4 00000000 0198fd08 779c0000 00000000
ntdll!LdrInitializeThunk+0x1c (FPO: [Non-Fpo])
Whereas GDB would print something like
#0 m4_traceon (obs=0x24eb0, argc=1, argv=0x2b8c8)
#1 0x6e38 in expand_macro (sym=0x2b600) at macro.c:242
#2 0x6840 in expand_token (obs=0x0, t=177664, td=0xf7fffb08)
(More stack frames follow...)
I really don't want to get in the business of trying to convert the first
format into the second format. Not only is it a recipe for disaster, but
it leads to worse diagnostics. When my CHECK statement fails, I can't even
see the original stack trace anymore, only a generic error message like
"could not parse stack trace"
> > I also expect that on Windows we will end up having far more debug info
> > tests than other platforms, specifically because we don't have the
> > ability to write tests against the debugger (as it's proprietary /
> > closed source).
> I don't see how that follows. Sony runs the GDB test suite using clang as
> the compiler, and while that is certainly perverting a debugger test suite
> into being a compiler test suite, it has value in being a body of tests
> that exercise a variety of debug-info features. GDB being open source is
> completely irrelevant to this use-case. We treat it as closed. We have
> local changes to the test suite, but not to GDB. The expected results
> from the suite are based on GDB+GCC, which we treat as an oracle; then we
> don't bother with tests of debugger features that clearly don't depend on
> debug info, such as thread handling.
GDB being open source is very relevant to this case, because it means you
*have* GDB's test suite. We don't have WinDbg or Visual Studio debugger's
> Whatever CodeView/PDB tests you want to write, you can use MS tools as
> your oracle. Maybe you can't leverage an existing test suite, but it
> doesn't mean you can't write tests.
Right, it just means we will end up writing plenty of tests that test
specific features of the debugger, something that would normally be handled
in a debugger test suite, which we don't have.
> > I don't see a useful abstraction that glosses over these differences
> > that isn't a ton of work for minimal gain, given the frequency with
> > which we'd need to fall back to a custom test anyway.
> As I mentioned above, you seem to be heading in the direction of a
> completely separate project, rather than being able to usefully
> leverage anything from debuginfo-tests other than the basic idea.
I don't entirely disagree with this assessment. On the other hand, I don't
see any reason to call it something other than "debuginfo-tests" or to put
it somewhere else, since conceptually both things are the same.
Even in this case though, reusing the source code of the tests seems like a
clear win since the high level ideas behind a test case often transcend
consumer boundaries, even when the implementation doesn't.
Plus, there is more to be gained from sharing than just the tests
themselves. For example, I'm trying to get debuginfo-tests working
properly with CMake in more idiomatic LLVM style. If I go off and fork the
tests into an entirely separate project, we wouldn't have that shared
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev