DhruvSrivastavaX wrote: > This is exactly what I had in mind -- thank you. > > The patch looks mostly good, apart from the inline comments. My main question > is about the "dependant modules" parsing code. AFAICT, its not actually > functional (and not tested). Is yaml2objs xcoff backend sufficiently > developed to create a test for the dependant module functionality? Given that > we rely on llvm for parsing that, we don't have to test it extensively, but > it would be nice to have at least one test. We could either do that in this > patch, or rip out the dependant module functionality, and add it back in > another patch -- up to you.
Great. Thanks for your inputs too. Yes, I think we can add dependant modules related changes later. I have removed them for now. About the yaml xcoff testing, For a basic test case as this one, it works great! I also tried using obj2yaml and on a compiled executable for a basic .c test case, and then reversing it with yaml2obj and that works fine too. But for the dependant module functionality, I might need to check some more, we can check on that in the later PRs. On another note, I have a doubt or maybe I am missing something: I am able to run lldb-test successfully on my aix system setup for this new basic xcoff file (where I have the entire aix changes along with a reduced xcoff same as in this PR). But lldb-test does not recognize the object file generated by yaml2obj on a linux ppc64 system (where I have only the merged changes and the xcoff changes only present in this PR). Is it not supposed to work that way or am I missing something? Any suggestions about what can I try would be great! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111814 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
