The last I knew LLD doesn't work on mach-o very well, so be sure to not require LLD for linking any Darwin executables.
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 6:42 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello all, > > currently we have a couple of tests, in-tree or under review, which are > very close to being host-independent. The only part they are missing is the > ability to link a intermediate object file: > - the ppc64 test in https://reviews.llvm.org/D44437 needs a linker to > resolve relocations in the debug info (*) > - the PDB tests under lit/SymbolFile/PDB need a linker to produce the > program database. > > I think it would be great if everyone were able to run these tests and > verify they don't regress them before they actually push a patch. > > Apart from that, I have started looking at writing some non-execution debug > info (**) tests as a part of adding DWARF v5 accelerator table support to > lldb (both to test the new implementation, and to make sure I don't regress > existing ones). Ideally I'd like to make sure that everyone is able to run > them, regardless of their primary (or only) development platform. For this, > I also need a linker capable of running everywhere (*) > > To achieve these goals, I'd like to propose that we add LLD as a (optional, > but strongly recommended) dependency for running tests and start using it > in the tests I mention. Doing this would optional in the sense that the > tests would be marked "REQUIRED: lld", and simply skipped if lld is not > available (so the tests would still be green). I say "strongly recommended" > because not having lld checked out should not be an excuse for breaking the > test, and the patch author should pro-actively revert a patch which breaks > such tests and investigate. > > I hope this proposal is not too controversial. LLD is already required on > windows to run dotest tests. Also, all monorepo users likely have it > already, or it is very easy for them to enable it. For non-monorepo users > it should be a matter of checking out one extra repository. Please Let me > know what you think. > > pavel > > (*) our ELF parser has very limited support for applying debug info > relocations -- it only works for x86, and only a couple of relocations are > currently implemented. It would be possible to remove the linker dependency > by implementing these (essentially, doing the link ourselves -- this is > what llvm does), but given the large number of architectures and relocation > types, combined with the long term goal of reusing the llvm's ELF parser, > this does not seem like a worthwhile goal. Also, it does not help the > windows situation, as in the PDB model it's the linker who produces the > pdb's. > > (**) I'll write a separate email about this, but what I'm essentially > thinking of is producing a stand-alone module (either from .yaml, .s, .ll, > or .c), hitting it with various FindXXX methods, and dumping the results. > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
