<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Zachary Turner <<a href="mailto:zturner@google.com" class="">zturner@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Even if it were under llvm, that doesn't mean it would have to be part of ninja check-all. Currently we have lldb/test and lldb/unittests, what about a third lldb/dbgtests? Then you could run it as ninja check-dbgtest.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>They are not LLDB tests. They end-to-end test that the debug info produced by clang works with the *host* debugger, which can be gdb or lldb. They are part of the CFE tests for this reason.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-- adrian</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Although now that I think about it, we would want it to be able to invoke clang-cl directly, so I guess that does necessitate it *not* being under llvm.</div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:26 AM David Blaikie <<a href="mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com" class="">dblaikie@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class="">It's used, but not a huge repository of things, as you can see. I think I've run it once or twice, but a long time ago. It was introduced for/by Apple/LLDB stuff, so it's not something I've paid much attention to.<br class=""><br class="">It's probably not suitable as part of llvm tests directly. Those tests are designed to be shorter/narrower/more focussed than full integration tests (we don't execute any compiled programs under test there, for example).<br class=""><br class="">Porting to lit seems probably fine/good.</div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:23 AM Zachary Turner <<a href="mailto:zturner@google.com" target="_blank" class="">zturner@google.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class="">What is the status of debuginfo-tests? Is it actively supported? How do you run it? It doesn't appear to be based on lit, any particular reason? Why is it its own repo instead of being part of llvm repo?<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I'd like improve this to support CodeView and PDB, such that it would only run on Windows and only if a suitable debugger was found (probably WinDbg). WinDbg supports a JavaScript-based scripting model, similar to how LLDB supports a Python based model, so my thoughts were to have a lit-based runner that scans for .js files that contain a test script alongside some source, then build the program, run it in WinDbg with some script that does various things, and exits the debugger, moving on to the next test.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Anything I should be aware of / careful of when messing around in here? And any reason it can't be moved to llvm/tests and ported to lit?</div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>