[llvm] r243487 - [tests] Use llvm-readobj instead of macho-dump.

[Saleem Abdulrasool]

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Sure. The last beast to tackle is llvm-objdump. I'm cool with doing
> > the conversion but I wanted to hear your opinion. I think that
> > llvm-readobj is more of a tool for the final user so it makes sense to
> > continue on error rather than calling exit(1). What's your opinion,
> > and, if you know, what's the GNU behavior in this case?
>
> When creating invalid object files for tests I noticed that tools like
> readelf normally print an error/warning and then proceed to print
> garbage or crash.
>
> IMHO users are better served by a good error message and a full stop,
> so IMHO exit(1) is better for llvm-objdump too.


Except in the case of static archives and import libraries, the single
element is ignored and they continue for the rest of the archive.  I think
that this can be useful for cases where we don't handle the particular
object.  Of course this requires that the archive or import library is well
formed and would fit into your statement, but just wanted to make sure that
this was called out explicitly.


>

Cheers,
> Rafael
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org <javascript:;>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>


-- 
Saleem Abdulrasool
compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20150805/f5a989ea/attachment.html>