[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

Do you just need a pdb, or does it really need to be a vs pdb? lld can
generate high quality pdbs now. So it might be possible to use lld to link
and produce a pdb when you run the test.

Pavel’s suggestion is equally viable, you can dump a pdb to yaml and
convert it back to a pdb at test time.

The real problem is the exe. It’s harder to generate exes at test time
because we have to ensure that dependent libraries are present on the
system.

If it has to be an msvc generated pdb, can you elaborate on why? Tbh I’m
not really against checking in pdbs. Exes I’d like to find a way to avoid
checking in wherever possible though. And even then, sometimes I don’t have
any better ideas other than compile and link before running the test
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:20 PM Aaron Smith via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> asmith added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47708#1123334, @labath wrote:
>
> > I have reverted this because of the broken tests.
> >
> > However, I have to also ask: isn't there better way to test this? (one
> that does not depend on opaque checked-in binaries). On linux, I could
> check-in a .s file which has the line table exactly as I want it and then
> have the test assert that. Is there some suitable intermediate form here?
> >
> > It seems that lld tests use some yaml form to store pdb's. Is there any
> chance we could do the same?
>
>
> I wish these binaries didn’t exist too. Im not sure if the lld approach
> works because I think we need the VS generated PDBs for function level
> testing. Maybe Zachary as a better idea.
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D47708
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20180606/dee98c2a/attachment.html>