[libcxx-dev] Contributing debug visualizers for libc++

[Sterling Augustine via libcxx-dev]

I've just sent https://reviews.llvm.org/D65609 for review.

It obviously needs to figure out how to tell if gdb is present. I'm not
sure how to communicate from find_program inside cmake all the way down
into UNSUPPORTED in the test file, but that is a minor detail.

There are a lot of judgement calls on how things look. We tried to match
libstdc++ where possible.

Also, happy to change directories or whatever.

We also need to figure out how to ship it to users. libstdc++.so uses a
.debug_gdb_scripts section to point to an absolute path where it is
installed. Static linking is trickier.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:23 AM Louis Dionne via libcxx-dev <
libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Jul 19, 2019, at 16:39, Duncan Exon Smith via libcxx-dev <
> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> You should be able to sniff in lit.local.config whether (a new enough) gdb
> is installed and mark the tests unsupported if not.  Unsupported is better
> than xfail here.
>
>
> This assumes that the tests are even using `lit`. I don’t know whether
> that’s the case. Let’s wait for the PR to be up!
>
> Louis
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2019, at 20:09, Louis Dionne via libcxx-dev <
> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> 
>
> On Jul 19, 2019, at 13:38, Sterling Augustine <saugustine at google.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'm working on this today. Question:
>
> What directories would be best for the python package and the associated
> tests? They don't seem to fit well in any current directories.
>
>
> Under libcxx/test, we could add a new directory like libcxx/test/gdb. We
> need to keep this out of the directories normally considered by lit, but I
> think that’s the only hard requirement.
>
>
> If gdb isn't installed on the machine, should they fail or not run? There
> are tradeoffs with both approaches.
>
>
> They should not run unless there’s a compelling reason to do otherwise. We
> don’t want to tie passing the libc++ test suite to having gdb installed!
>
> Note that whatever approach we use, it would be nice if we could use the
> same approach for the lldb formatters once/if the LLDB folks decide to send
> them our way.
>
> Louis
>
>
> Getting them shipped to actual users is a different can of worms, but we
> can look at that when we actually have something to work with.
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:23 AM Sterling Augustine <saugustine at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes they will need gdb to run, and we will go through the full review
>> process with all of it.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:08 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm assuming the tests need GDB in order to run -- is that correct? I
>>> assume you'll put up a Phab review when you're ready?
>>>
>>> Louis
>>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2019, at 16:40, Sterling Augustine <saugustine at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:53 PM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What do the tests look like? Is that something that we can reasonably
>>>> run as part of the libc++ test suite?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. I would upstream the tests them as part of upstreaming the
>>> printers. I'm working on this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> libcxx-dev mailing list
> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libcxx-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> libcxx-dev mailing list
> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libcxx-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> libcxx-dev mailing list
> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libcxx-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/libcxx-dev/attachments/20190801/cc67f87c/attachment.html>