tra added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/Driver/linker-wrapper-libs.c:27 // // Check that we extract a static library defining an undefined symbol. // ---------------- jhuber6 wrote: > tra wrote: > > How does this test test the functionality of the undefined symbol? E.g. how > > does it fail now, before the patch? > > > > Is there an explicit check we could to do to make sure things work as > > intended as opposed to "there's no obvious error" which may also mean "we > > forgot to process *undefined.bc". > Yeah, I wasn't sure how to define a good test for this. The problem I > encountered before making this patch was that having another file that used > an undefined symbol would override the `NewSymbol` check and then would > prevent it from being extracted. So this checks that case. AFAICT, with -DUNDEFINED, the file would have only `extern int sym;`. CE says suggests that it produces an embty bitcode file: https://godbolt.org/z/EY9a8Pfeb What exactly is supposed to be in the `*.undefined.bc` ? If it's intended to have an undefined reference to `sym` you need to add some sort of a reference to it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D151839/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D151839 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
