[llvm-dev] Status of debuginfo-tests

[Zachary Turner via llvm-dev]

To be clear, the tests I'm proposing will have no resemblance whatsoever to
GDB, so I would be intentionally forking the set of tests in this regards.
So there would very clearly be a paradigm shift in writing CodeView debug
info tests (which would be written in JavaScript using WinDbg specific
debugger commands) and DWARF debug info tests (which would be written in
whatever / using GDB style commands)

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:34 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:

> As executable tests, they fail spectacularly in a cross-build
> environment.  And you need some sort of debugger with GDB-like commands and
> output (or have some front end to your debugger that imitates that) in
> order to run them.  I think they would need to stay in a separate project
> because of those requirements.
>
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *David
> Blaikie via llvm-dev
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 07, 2017 11:26 AM
> *To:* Zachary Turner; llvm-dev
> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] Status of debuginfo-tests
>
>
>
> It's used, but not a huge repository of things, as you can see. I think
> I've run it once or twice, but a long time ago. It was introduced for/by
> Apple/LLDB stuff, so it's not something I've paid much attention to.
>
> It's probably not suitable as part of llvm tests directly. Those tests are
> designed to be shorter/narrower/more focussed than full integration tests
> (we don't execute any compiled programs under test there, for example).
>
> Porting to lit seems probably fine/good.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:23 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>
> What is the status of debuginfo-tests?  Is it actively supported?  How do
> you run it?  It doesn't appear to be based on lit, any particular reason?
> Why is it its own repo instead of being part of llvm repo?
>
>
>
> I'd like improve this to support CodeView and PDB, such that it would only
> run on Windows and only if a suitable debugger was found (probably
> WinDbg).  WinDbg supports a JavaScript-based scripting model, similar to
> how LLDB supports a Python based model, so my thoughts were to have a
> lit-based runner that scans for .js files that contain a test script
> alongside some source, then build the program, run it in WinDbg with some
> script that does various things, and exits the debugger, moving on to the
> next test.
>
>
>
> Anything I should be aware of / careful of when messing around in here?
> And any reason it can't be moved to llvm/tests and ported to lit?
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170907/059a7402/attachment.html>