dblaikie added a comment. In D87673#2290926 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87673#2290926>, @sammccall wrote:
> In D87673#2290838 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87673#2290838>, @dblaikie wrote: > >> In D87673#2275940 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87673#2275940>, @sammccall >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks, this seems better than crashing. >>> The practical result isn't wonderful: the two are going to fight over index >>> files to some extent. But this can happen with different clangd versions >>> (that use different index format versions) anyway. So this is really just >>> graceful recovery from a bad situation. >>> >>> In D87673#2273347 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87673#2273347>, @ArcsinX wrote: >>> >>>> Unsure about test for this >>> >>> Agree, testing this seems hard and not that useful. >> >> FWIW here's how to test codepaths only reachable when zlib is not available: >> >> ./llvm/test/tools/llvm-dwp/X86/nocompress.test: >> >> REQUIRES: !zlib > > Yep, that requires a checked-in binary file, which in the case of that test > is in a standard stable format, which this data is not, so we'd also need > tools to regenerate it. And we don't have APIs to generate the file without > compression if zlib is available (because we never want to do that), so we'd > need to add those or require anyone touching the file format to build a > no-zlib tree to regenerate the file. > None of this is impossible, but this is pretty unlikely to catch a bug, and > it's very unlikely to be a high-impact bug.. Ah, fair enough. Might be nice to have a flag to request the uncompressed behavior even when compression's available - for testing purposes and such, but given the current implementation, yeah, don't see a tidy way to test it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D87673/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D87673 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
