[PATCH] D84234: [DWARFYAML] Implement the .debug_loclists section.

[James Henderson via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jhenderson added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/tools/yaml2obj/ELF/DWARF/debug-loclists.yaml:808
+  debug_loclists:
+    - Offsets: []
+      Lists:
----------------
This is fine, but I think an expectation might be that if `OffsetEntryCount: 0` is specified, (and not `Offsets: []`), it would have the same effect.

I think you want two more cases:

1) `OffsetEntryCount: 0` and no `Offsets` key at all (will result in no offsets).
2) `OffsetEntryCount: 0` and a non-empty `Offsets` key (will result in 0 in offset_entry_count, but with offsets).

Does that make sense to you?


================
Comment at: llvm/test/tools/yaml2obj/ELF/DWARF/debug-loclists.yaml:757-758
+
+## t) Test that yaml2obj emits an error message if we use an unimplemented DWARF expression
+## operator.
+
----------------
Higuoxing wrote:
> jhenderson wrote:
> > Rather than a known value that we one day will likely support, causing this test to be updated, perhaps we should pick a value that isn't supported by the DWARF spec?
> I'm not sure if I'm doing right here. If we pick a value that isn't supported by the DWARF sepc, the error message
> 
> ```
> yaml2obj: error: DWARF expression: DW_OP_blah is not supported
>                                    ^~~~~~~~~~
> ```
> 
> will be left untested.
Ah, I see. Perhaps we should have both then. (One with arbitrary unrecognised hex, and the other using a recognised value which isn't supported).


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D84234/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D84234