[PATCH] [dwarfdump] Print the name for referenced specification of abstract_origin DIEs.

[Adrian Prantl]

> On Oct 3, 2014, at 4:06 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Frederic Riss <friss at apple.com <mailto:friss at apple.com>> wrote:
> ================
> Comment at: test/DebugInfo/Inputs/gmlt.ll:46
> @@ -45,3 +45,3 @@
> 
> -; CHECK: [[F3_ABS_DEF:.*]]:  DW_TAG_subprogram
> +; CHECK: DW_TAG_subprogram
>  ; CHECK-NEXT:     DW_AT_name {{.*}} "f3"
> ----------------
> dblaikie wrote:
> > Not sure - might even be worth dropping these abstract subprograms entirely when they're not checking anything interesting (just the name is being checked by the abstract_definition check you modified below). *shrug* dunno.
> Unfortunately, in some test cases they have to stay because they 'consume' a part of the file. If I had removed this one, then the next TAG_subprogram would match the abstract DIE and the test would fail. This is one of the biggest shortcomings of testing the Dwarf contents with FileCheck IMHO.
> 
> Agreed - usually the way I do this is just to skip over the unintersting tags as quickly as possible (you'll see a few test cases that just hawe "CHECK: DW_TAG_subprogram" three times in a row, etc). Open to ideas on the best way to do that. Perhaps they sometimes merit comments, or not, perhaps sometimes they could just be a "CHECK: DW_TAG" to even more opaquely skip over uninteresting tags.

At some point it might make sense to either make llvm-dwardump also emit a syntax that is more amenable to FileCheck (one TAG per line), or the other way round.

-- adrian

>  
> 
> ================
> Comment at: test/DebugInfo/X86/inline-member-function.ll:24
> @@ +23,3 @@
> +; CHECK: DW_AT_specification {{.*}} "_ZN3foo4funcEi"
> +; CHECK-NOT: NULL
> +; CHECK-NOT: TAG
> ----------------
> dblaikie wrote:
> > Could write this as {{NULL|TAG}} (& update the other one nearby to do that for consistency). If you like.
> Will do
> 
> ================
> Comment at: test/DebugInfo/X86/inline-seldag-test.ll:14
> @@ -13,3 +13,1 @@
> 
> -; CHECK: [[F:.*]]: DW_TAG_subprogram
> -; CHECK-NOT: DW_TAG
> ----------------
> dblaikie wrote:
> > I see you dropped the abs def checking in this case - why this case & not others?
> Because in this case, noone else tries to match a TAG_subprogram, the test bellow is for an inline_subroutine.
> 
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D5466 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D5466>
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20141003/7886bf4d/attachment.html>