[llvm-commits] [llvm] r172630 - in /llvm/trunk: include/llvm/MC/MCContext.h lib/MC/MCDwarf.cpp test/MC/MachO/gen-dwarf-producer.s tools/llvm-mc/llvm-mc.cpp

[Kevin Enderby]

On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Kevin Enderby <enderby at apple.com> wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>> 
>> This is just for testing (without the clang change).  I didn't want to add a
>> it as a command line argument to llvm-mc as that would then have the
>> producer string as it would also affect the AT_Apple flags.
> 
> Curious: what do you mean by this? What are the AT_Apple flags?
> (sorry, I'm not familiar with this area)

The AT_APPLE_flags are set to the command line arguments when the
environment variable RC_DEBUG_OPTIONS is set.  We use it for checking
for compiler command line arguments in binaries.

> 
> As for the testing issue, could this be written as a unit test instead
> of having a test hook like this?

I'm not sure what you are asking for.  I did create a test case for this that
uses just llvm-mc.  Are you like Eric and don't want it tested with an environment
variable?

> (Ideally even once Clang is testing
> this code path, it'd be nice to still have LLVM functionality tested
> in LLVM so LLVM developers who aren't necessarily working
> with/building/testing Clang could still know that they haven't broken
> this functionality - but I realize sometimes that benefit isn't worth
> the overhead of writing such tests for relatively trivial features,
> but it's worth checking* if we've reached a tipping point where a few
> trivial features could all benefit from the addition of unit tests,
> for example)
> 
> * I say this in the absence of any specific knowledge - perhaps this
> is the only such case & there's no aggregate benefit, etc, at the
> moment.
> 
>> 
>> If you like I can remove this code and the test when the clang side of the
>> change is finished.
>> 
>> Kev
>> 
>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> +static std::string DwarfDebugProducer;
>>> +static void setDwarfDebugProducer(void) {
>>> +  if(!getenv("DEBUG_PRODUCER"))
>>> +    return;
>>> +  DwarfDebugProducer += getenv("DEBUG_PRODUCER");
>>> +}
>>> +
>> 
>> 
>> Any particular reason or compatibility with this? I'd prefer not to have it
>> otherwise. If we do need it can you make it work for the compiled case as
>> well?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> -eric
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>