[PATCH] D90717: [llvm] Add a test for debug info generated with split functions.

[Sriraman Tallam via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

tmsriram added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/DebugInfo/X86/machine-function-splitter.ll:48
+;; llvm-profdata merge -o default.profdata default_*.profraw
+;; clang -fprofile-use -O2 -g -S -emit-llvm split_functions.c
+;; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
----------------
dblaikie wrote:
> MaskRay wrote:
> > tmsriram wrote:
> > > Do we need a -gsplit-dwarf fission test too?
> > The current test only checks -g1 line table. If it targets -g2 (and I think it probably should), I expect that more stuff should be tested.
> > Adding @dblaikie who knows better how to construct an interesting test.
> If this is a general discussion of "What debug info related things should we test for bb-sections in the LLVM project" it'd be good to get a quick summary of what testing already exists.
> 
> But otherwise, broad testing I'd think:
> * llvm-symbolizer testing (check a couple of addresses in different bb sections, covering an inlined function)
> * llvm-dwarfdump of a linked executable showing bb section line table, DW_AT_ranges on the DW_TAG_subprogram
> 
> But maybe both of these tests are already checked in/implemented?
> 
> I don't think there's much need for Split DWARF-specific testing, as the Split DWARF handling of ranges is fairly orthogonal to where they appear (shouldn't be interesting to Split DWARF that the ranges appear on a DW_TAG_subprogram, I don't think).
Yes the llvm-dwarfdump and the split dwarf testing of DW_AT_ranges is already there:  test/DebugInfo/X86/basic-block-sections_1.ll
I didnt add a llvm-symbolizer test, only did lldb tests.  I can add a symbolizer test.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D90717/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D90717