zturner added a comment. which generic SymbolFile test do you mean? The lit ones are the only ones that are set up to run in this particular manner (run lines, check lines, etc), and currently we don't have a way to run different / multiple command line invocations. I came up with this test in order to test the new changes I introduced in `SymbolFileNativePdb.cpp` that are also in this patch, so I definitely want to make sure all of that code still gets exercised with whatever test strategy I end up using.
I guess the way I see it, there's two interesting things this test could exercise. 1) the debug info, and 2) the formatters. If we want to test the formatters, we could probably brainstorm a way to do it generically with 1 test (or set of tests) that omits the SymbolFile from the picture entirely and is generic enough that it should be applicable to any platform/compiler/host. If we want to test the SymbolFile plugin though, then it may need to be specific to the debug info type. I think what you're getting at though is that we probably need some notion of "debug info variants" for these lit tests like we have in the dotest suite. I actually had an idea for something that might work like that a while back, which I described here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52618#1252906 But the idea would basically be that instead of hardcoding a command line like I've done with `clang-cl /Z7 etc etc` we could write something more generic that would evaluate to different (or perhaps even multiple) things, so we could run it different ways. https://reviews.llvm.org/D53731 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
