[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D35740: Fix PR33875 by distinguishing between DWO and clang modules
David Blaikie via lldb-commits
lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Sat Jul 22 14:26:07 PDT 2017
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 6:14 PM Jim Ingham <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> Not at present, but you presumably know more about this than I do. Part
> of the point of Greg's extracting the DWARF parser from lldb and making it
> into it's own library in llvm was precisely so that somebody could then
> write a simple wrapper tool that would poke it with not necessarily
> complete but interesting canned bits of DWARF and see that it does the
> right thing. I thought you were involved with the reviews for that work?
Yep yep - though not necessarily clear on the bigger picture goals in terms
of which components were going where in the long term.
> I was not paying attention to the details of that effort as DWARF
> parsing's not really my thing.
> Anyway, the extraction of the DWARF parser was Greg's last act before
> leaving Apple, and the project stalled at that point. I don't imagine he
> could have gotten that code into llvm without some testing, so the kind of
> test you are thinking of should be done using whatever mechanism you guys
> devised for the new llvm dwarf parser.
Adrian - any chance something like the DwarfGenerator stuff in LLVM could
be used to test this code?
> Of course, it's less interesting to test the llvm version of the DWARF
> parser if lldb's not using it, so for that to be directly relevant here
> that piece of work would need to be done.
Perhaps - or reusing the same testing approach without that. Though I think
this particular failure/fix was in a higher/lower different layer than the
pure parsing stuff in LLVM, but I could be wrong - there's sufficient
divergence it's not obvious from a few class names, etc, to tell how much
overlap (& where) there is.
> > On Jul 21, 2017, at 5:51 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:05 PM Greg Clayton via Phabricator <
> reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> > clayborg accepted this revision.
> > clayborg added a comment.
> > Looks like there already is a test case that was failing as Jim
> mentioned. Accepting based on that.
> > Ah, I was thinking more a test that would've failed when LLDB regressed
> (regardless of whether Clang was still producing this DWARF or not) - does
> LLDB have tests like that? (either binary, asm, or some other terse way of
> writing DWARF directly to test "does LLDB do the right thing with this
> DWARF" sort of tests?)
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D35740
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lldb-commits