plotfi added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48782#1148498, @alexshap wrote:
> @labath > > > I am not denying that there is value in running the dotest suite in all of > > these modes. In fact, I think that (the fact that we can use the same tests > > to exercise a lot of different scenarios) is one of the strengths ?>of our > > test suite. However, I don't believe all of these modes should be inflicted > > onto everyone running lldb tests or be our first and only line of defense > > against regressions. > > for what it's worth - not sure how much you care about my opinion, but i > think it's an important point but it doesn't actually contradict or prevent > your second point regarding adding regression tests using lldb-test, however > i think those should be added over time (sadly no tests were added when the > support for .dwp was implemented / introduced) (not in this patch). > I think that the approach of this patch is still useful, this mode can be > off by default, but if smb needs to run all the tests with dwps - it's easy > to do by passing or setting a variable (for example). yes, thats the near term solution. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48782#1148288, @aprantl wrote: > Is your plan to add dwp as another dimension in the test matrix (an equal > citizen of DWARF, dSYM, DWO) or something that would be on or off for an > entire run of the suite, or something only exercised by few specialized > testcases? another dimension, off by default In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48782#1148929, @JDevlieghere wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48782#1148376, @labath wrote: > > > Then, for the integration test part, I propose to come up with a more > > generic way to specify the kind of debug info to generate. I don't have > > this fully thought out yet, but I have been thinking of something that > > could wrap the compiler invocation with some user specified script. Then we > > could use the same mechanism to run DWP and DWZ with any kind of crazy > > compiler flags we think of (which is definitely useful when bringing up > > support for a new kind of debug info format). If someone has a particular > > interest in a specific combo, he can set up a bot which runs tests in this > > mode (details about who would be responsible for fixing failures TBD) > > > I really like that idea. It sounds similar to the EXPENSIVE_CHECKS we have > for LLVM. Personally I'd love to have an overnight job that runs the test > suite with DWARF5 for example. Oh, I see. Have some generic option for debug format to make this problem simpler every time it arises. ================ Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/make/Makefile.rules:238 +ifneq (,$(wildcard $(LLVM_DWP))) + MAKE_DWP=YES ---------------- alexshap wrote: > aprantl wrote: > > Is the fact this this is *llvm-*dwp critical, or are llvm-dwp and GNU dwp > > interchangeable? In the latter case, I'd prefer to drop the LLVM part from > > the variable. > llvm-dwp and dwp should both work Ah good. I will do that. https://reviews.llvm.org/D48782 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
