[PATCH] D119901: [Debuginfod] Add BUILD_ID syntax to llvm-symbolizer.

Wed Feb 16 01:12:38 PST 2022

jhenderson added a comment.

I'm not at all familiar with the debuginfod stuff, so this probably needs a second pair of eyes from someone with more knowledge in this area.

Do you need a test-case where BUILD_ID is used and --obj is specified?

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CommandGuide/llvm-symbolizer.rst:31

+Prefixing the above with "BUILD_ID" causes the object file to be interpreted as
+a hex build ID rather than a path. This will look up the corresponding debug
----------------
I have a marginal preference for `BUILDID` (withotu the underscore), as I dislike typing underscores. I don't feel strongly about this though, so if you prefer with the underscore, that's fine.

The use of the term "object file" seems a bit unintuitive here though, since a build ID is neither an object file itself, nor a path to one. Perhaps it would be better to rephrase the references to "object file" earlier in this section with "input name" or similar, then here, I'd start this paragraph with something like "By default, input names are interpreted as object file paths. However, prefixing the command with ...". Finally, I'd then put this paragraph second or third in order in this section.

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CommandGuide/llvm-symbolizer.rst:158
+
+  $ llvm-symbolizer "BUILD_ID 123456789abcdef 0x400490" "BUILD_ID DATA 123456789abcdef 0x601028"
+  baz()
----------------
It would be good to have a test case that tests the interaction of `BUILD_ID` and `DATA` and/or `CODE`.

================
Comment at: llvm/test/tools/llvm-symbolizer/debuginfod.test:49
+RUN:   FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NOTHINGFOUND
+NOTHINGFOUND: ??
+NOTHINGFOUND-NEXT: ??:0:0
----------------
Add some indentation to make the output line up, as if it were on the command-line.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D119901/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D119901