clayborg added a comment.
In D96637#2567269 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96637#2567269>, @aadsm wrote:
>> We should have a test for this.
>
> how do you recommend doing this? I spent a couple of hours on this but got no
> where. From what I understood we should prefer lit tests, so I was thinking
> of creating a binary that dlopens a module. However, I wasn't able to create
> a binary that I can start and capture its pid address so that I can attach
> to. Here's what I've tried so far:
>
> // RUN: cp %s %s.cpp
> // RUN: %clang -g -O0 --target=x86_64-linux-gnu %s.cpp -o %s.out
> // RUN: PID=$(%s.out)
> // RUN: %lldb -p $PID -b -o 'target list' | FileCheck %s
> // RUN: kill -9 $PID
> // CHECK: foo
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> int main() {
> pid_t pid = fork();
> if (pid > 0) {
> // parent process, print child pid
> printf("%d", pid);
> return 0;
> } else if (pid < 0) {
> printf("Unable to fork\n");
> return -1;
> }
> // child process
> pause();
> }
>
> The lit test get stuck on `// RUN: PID=$(%s.out)`. Not sure why, the parent
> process shouldn't wait on its children..
I would do an end to end test for this. We have many attach tests that should
be easy to modify and pause() and then try to load a local dylib that is
dlopen'ed. Unless Pavel has a differing opinion?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D96637/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D96637
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
