> (it seems the "native" pdb reading apis in llvm are not all implemented)
Sorry, I missed this thread earlier. That's true, the native PDB reading APIs have been started but are not complete. I'm working on that, mostly in the context of llvm-pdbutil rather than lldb. On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I have created a patch <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46318>, which extends > lldb-test to support more precise dumping of the symbol information in a > module. It uses lld to make sure the tests can run on any system (which has > lld checked out) and to avoid the tests being affected by the environment. > Let me know what you think of it. > > I've also tried using lld for the PDB tests. The lld part worked fine, but > unfortunately, it seems lldb still depends on the microsoft pdb reader to > get the symbol information (it seems the "native" pdb reading apis in llvm > are not all implemented). > > On the bright side, it looks like it should be able to produce working (and > debuggable) MachO binaries using lld. It probably does not support all the > fancy features that the native darwin linker does, but it seemed to work > fine for my hello world examples (the only issue I saw was that it is not > possible to convince it to *not* require the dyld_stub_binder symbol, but > this can be worked around). I am going to continue experimenting here. > > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 at 19:41, Ted Woodward <ted.woodw...@codeaurora.org> > wrote: > > > > Our Windows buildbots use msys for gnuisms. The makefiles in the test > suite run fine with minimal modifications (just the object delete hack Zach > put in to use del instead of rm; msys make doesn't accept cmd syntax while > Cygwin make does). Now, that's using clang to build Hexagon binaries, but > teaching the makefile to use cl syntax shouldn't be too hard. I've seen it > done before; same makefile for windows and various unix derivatives, detect > what OS you were running on and set CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS accordingly. > > > Ted > > > -- > > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a > Linux Foundation Collaborative Project > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of > Pavel > > > Labath via lldb-dev > > > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 12:45 PM > > > To: Leonard Mosescu <mose...@google.com> > > > Cc: aaron.lee.sm...@gmail.com; LLDB <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> > > > Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] Proposal: Using LLD in tests > > > > > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 at 18:19, Leonard Mosescu <mose...@google.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> the PDB tests under lit/SymbolFile/PDB need a linker to produce > > > >> the > > > program database > > > > > > > > > > With this proposal, would we preserve any coverage for MSVC produced > > > debug information? > > > > > > > > > Well.. the question there is what are you trying to test? Is it the > fact your > > > debugger works with a particular compiler+linker combination (note that > those > > > tests already compile with clang-cl), or that your pdb-parsing code is > sane. > > > (integration vs. regression test). > > > > > > Historically we've only had the former kind of tests (dotest), and > we've had the > > > ability (and used it) to run those tests against different kinds of > compilers. This > > > is all nice, but it means that a specific test will be testing a > different thing for > > > every person who runs it. That's why I would like to build up a suite > of more > > > regression-like tests (*). I would say that the tests under lit/*** > should be > > > regression tests and our goal should be to remove as many system > > > dependencies as possible, and leave the job of testing integration with > a > > > specific toolchain to "dotest" tests (**). > > > > > > Technically, the answer to your question is "no", because currently > dotest tests > > > don't know how to work with cl+link. Making that work would be an > interesting > > > project (although a bit annoying as the Makefiles are full of > gcc-isms). > > > However, I don't think that should stop us here. > > > > > > (*) Ideally I would like to leave even the compiler out of the equation > for these > > > tests, and make it so that the tests always run on the exact same set > of bytes. I > > > am hoping I will be able to write at least some tests using .s files. > However, I > > > don't think I will do that for all of them, because these files can be > > > long/verbose/tedious to write. > > > > > > (**) However, even "dotest" tests should have a "default" mode which is > as > > > hermetic as possible. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
