[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D69031: [LLDB] [test] Use %clang_cl instead of build.py in a few tests

[Pavel Labath via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

labath added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lldb/test/Shell/SymbolFile/NativePDB/disassembly.cpp:6
+// RUN: %clang_cl --target=x86_64-windows-msvc -Od -Z7 -c /Fo%t.obj -- %s
+// RUN: lld-link -debug:full -nodefaultlib -entry:main %t.obj -out:%t.exe -pdb:%t.pdb
 // RUN: env LLDB_USE_NATIVE_PDB_READER=1 %lldb -f %t.exe -s \
----------------
mstorsjo wrote:
> stella.stamenova wrote:
> > Why is lld-link not specified as %lld_link?
> Because that's how the lit substitutions are set up currently, and that's how existing tests write it. The substitutions are defined here:
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/utils/lit/lit/llvm/config.py#L410
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/utils/lit/lit/llvm/config.py#L492
> 
> Not sure if it's just because these have randomly happened to diverge, or if the percent for clang indicates that it's not just replaced with a resolved path, but also might include a few preset options.
> Not sure if it's just because these have randomly happened to diverge, or if the percent for clang indicates that it's not just replaced with a resolved path, but also might include a few preset options.

I think that might have been the intention at some point, but I wouldn't count on it being applied consistently.


Repository:
  rLLDB LLDB

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D69031/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D69031