dblaikie added a comment. In D94063#2485271 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94063#2485271>, @labath wrote:
> In D94063#2483546 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94063#2483546>, @dblaikie wrote: > >> If it's better to write it using C++ source and custom clang flags I can do >> that instead (it'll be an -mllvm flag - looks like there's one other test >> that does that: `lldb/test/API/lang/objc/forward-decl/TestForwardDecl.py: >> dict(CFLAGS_EXTRAS="-dwarf-version=5 -mllvm -accel-tables=Dwarf"))`) >> - means the test will be a bit more convoluted to tickle the subprogram >> ranges, but not much - just takes two functions+function-sections. > > I certainly wouldn't want to drop the existing test. Ah, what's the tradeoff between the different test types here? > However, it could be useful to have c++ test too. This one could feature a > more complicated executable, and be more open-ended/exploratory and test > end-to-end functionality (including compiler integration), instead of a > targeted "did we parse DW_AT_ranges correctly" regression test. Then this > test could go into the `API` test category, as we have the ability to run > those kinds of tests against different compilers. Does this include support for custom compiler flags (it'd currently take a non-official/internal-only llvm flag to create the DW_AT_ranges on a subprogram that I have in mind, for instance)? > However, all of that is strictly optional. I'll consider it for a separate commit. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D94063/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D94063 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
