[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D40616: ObjectFileELF: Add support for compressed sections

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

FWIW, it can certainly use the SB API where it makes sense, but I think
requiring that it only use the SB API would be very limiting and a big
mistake.

The entire point of a tool such as this is that it allows you to dig deep
into internals that would be difficult to access otherwise.

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:23 PM Jason Molenda <jmolenda at apple.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:51 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-commits <
> lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:59 PM Jim Ingham <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> > I'm mostly basing this concern on the bad effect this had on gdb all of
> whose testing was expect based command scraping.  gdb is a tool that's much
> closer to lldb than any of the compiler tools so that experience seems
> relevant.  It's been a decade or so since I worked on gdb, but back when I
> was working on it, you really had to tread very carefully if you wanted to
> change the output of, say, the break command, or to thread listings, etc,
> and a bunch of times I just had to bag some cleanup of output I wanted to
> do because fixing up all the tests was too time consuming.  Because Jason
> and I had both had this experience when we started working on lldb, we
> promised ourselves we wouldn't go down this path again...
> >
> >
> > Couple of things:
> >
> > 1) I wouldn't dare to use this approach for anything that required
> interactivity.  If you need to run one command, extract a value from the
> output, and use that value as input to another command, I think that would
> be a big mistake.  I have no intention of ever proposing something like
> that.
> >
> > 2) FileCheck is very flexible in the way it matches output and tests can
> be written so that they are resilient to minor format tweaks.  I have no
> doubt that with pure regex matching, or with pretty much any other tool,
> you would have a really bad time.  Of course, that doesn't mean it would be
> hard to construct an example of a format change that would break a
> FileCheck test.  But I think it would happen *far* less frequently than it
> did on GDB.  That said, I still understand your concerns that it's fragile,
> so...
> >
> > 3) I would not be opposed to a tool called lldb-test, which was
> basically just LLDB with a different, and much more limited set of
> commands, and was completely non-interactive and would produce output in a
> format designed for being scraped, and which never had to be changed since
> it was never presented to the user.
>
>
> 100% agree with #3.  We could go back and forth about using lldb-mi, but I
> think a specialized driver using SB API, designed for testing, would be a
> great approach.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20171129/2ee1fcd4/attachment.html>