[lld] r193362 - Revert "r193300 - [PassManager] add ReaderWriter{Native, YAML} to the Driver"

[Shankar Easwaran]

Hi Rui, All,

I mirror Chandlers thought that we really dont want to go in the path of 
adding these passes from each flavor, as thats only a change which would 
be removed by subsequent commits.

Meanwhile, I have fixed all the tests across all flavors except the same 
failure across two different tests in pecoff.

The test is drective.test/dynamic.test which is failing to create the 
entries in the Import table :-

<------------snip------------------->
The Import Tables:
   lookup 00002068 time 00000000 fwd 00000000 name 000020a4 addr 00002088

     DLL Name: vars.dll
     Hint/Ord  Name
            0  _name_with_underscore
            1  fn
<------------snip------------------->

Can you take a look into that ? I have debugged that for a while and 
cant find a solution. On first thought I think there need to be seperate 
types for the derived atoms from the IDataAtom, and the Writer need to 
seperately handle writing of these atoms.

We could need to disable 2 of these tests that fail due to the same 
issue, so that you can look into the failure, after the changes are 
committed which fixes all the other failures(Sent a review request -- 
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2022)

Thanks

Shankar Easwaran

On 10/24/2013 5:21 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote:
> By pushing I'm not referencing to this particular thing.
>
> Do you think you can enable the tests per-port basis, as Reid suggested? I
> think that's better than guarding it with #ifdef, as you can enable it now
> for ELF (so that it won't bit rotten while being disabled by #ifdef) and
> other port owners can fix it independently.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Shankar Easwaran
> <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote:
>
>> On 10/24/2013 4:27 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote:
>>
>>> LLD is still in an early stage of development. We've got many things to
>>> do,
>>> and this is not the highest priority among them that needs to be done by
>>> next week or otherwise we should break Mach-O and COFF ports. I thank you
>>> for putting your effort on this new test scheme, but I can't promise we
>>> can
>>> fix them in such a short period of time.
>>>
>>> I hate to say but I'm honestly disappointed. We should respect each other
>>> in open source development, rather than forcing each other to do
>>> something.
>>> If you find someone have a different opinion, you need to elaborate why
>>> you
>>> think in a different way, rather than replying with a short email
>>> repeating
>>> basically the same thing. These days, virtually you and me submitted 90%
>>> of
>>> patches to LLD (I think I submitted like 60%), but I sometimes found that
>>> you pushed your opinion too hard without enough explanation. That's not
>>> good. Please respect each other, or this development style does not work.
>>>
>> I am so sorry If I implied that, I was only pushing it because this was
>> one of the design goals (the Atom IR) of lld.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Shankar Easwaran
>>
>> --
>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted
>> by the Linux Foundation
>>
>>


-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation