[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D19998: Add a "-gmodules" category to the test suite.

Adrian Prantl via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri May 6 08:58:28 PDT 2016

aprantl added a comment.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19998#423277, @labath wrote:

> I am glad to see more testing of the modules debugging. I have a couple of small comments though:
> - `-fmodules`: Why is it not being added to CXXFLAGS? Is this how clang is supposed to be invoked? (I am not very familiar clang modules)

C++ modules are still a work in progress and not supported on all platforms (particularly on Darwin due to the way the system module maps interact with libc++, see https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26928 for examples). On the platforms where C++ modules work well (such as Linux) on the other hand, module debugging hasn't been productized so far. Due to the way module debugging reuses DWO mechanisms I don't expect it to work without some fine-tuning.

> - there is a `@skipUnlessClangModules` decorator in decorators.py. As far as I can see, this patch should now make it obsolete. It seems that it can be removed and all invocations replaced with `add_test_categories(["gmodules"])`

Good catch. I didn't notice that!

> And one meta-comment not directly related to this patch:

>  We already run most of the tests two times. Now we will be doing it once more, which will increase the test times even more. I think it's important for each debug info format to have good coverage, but I also feel that there are tests which have nothing to do with debug info (or their connection to debug info is only very peripheral), and it does not make to sense to slow down the tests runs by running those tests so many times. We already have a (not very elegant, but working) mechanism to avoid this (`NO_DEBUG_INFO_TESTCASE` member). I propose that we be more aggressive in using it for new tests which do not specifically test debug info. Also when looking at existing tests, we should re-evaluate whether the test really needs to be run that many times (right now, the largest candidate that comes to mind is TestConcurrentEvents, but I am sure there are others I can't think of by name now).

That sounds like an all-around good idea, but probably out of scope for this patch.


More information about the lldb-commits mailing list