clayborg added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/unittests/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARFTests.cpp:369 + EXPECT_EQ(section_sp->GetType(), eSectionTypeCode); +} ---------------- I would rather deal with an C++ unit test any day. Trying to track down what set of convoluted command line commands reproduce some lit test is quite annoying and takes me a lot more time to debug. I think this test is targeted and tests what is needed. I would vote to keep this one over converting to a text dump test. My main reasoning is that it isn't possible to re-create a compilable test case that will survive any compiler that it used (past, present and future), and all symbol resolution is done bone using this call in all cases. When something goes wrong, very easy to compile the binary and debug. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D87172/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D87172 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
