labath added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21221#457329, @ravitheja wrote:
> @labath In order to reproduce this situation without the help of standard > library, I would have to write handwritten assembly and the CFI directives > for that, is that fine ? Yes, I think that's fine. Obviously that will make the test x86-specific (and probably linux-specific, although it would be great if that can be avoided (*)), but at least it will be well focused, and not relying on random timings in other tests. A less preferred but-still-better-than-status-quo option would be to keep the standard library dependency but remove the timing issues (e.g., by setting the breakpoint in fflush, instruction-stepping 100 times, and making sure you unwind correctly from each place). (*) One way to do that is to avoid running code. If you can write the test in a way that it does not need a running process then you can just check in a tiny (linux) module, load it and query some properties of the contained functions and their unwind plans... http://reviews.llvm.org/D21221 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
