labath added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/test/Shell/SymbolFile/NativePDB/disassembly.cpp:6 +// RUN: %clang_cl --target=x86_64-windows-msvc -Od -Z7 -c /Fo%t.obj -- %s +// RUN: lld-link -debug:full -nodefaultlib -entry:main %t.obj -out:%t.exe -pdb:%t.pdb // RUN: env LLDB_USE_NATIVE_PDB_READER=1 %lldb -f %t.exe -s \ ---------------- mstorsjo wrote: > stella.stamenova wrote: > > Why is lld-link not specified as %lld_link? > Because that's how the lit substitutions are set up currently, and that's how > existing tests write it. The substitutions are defined here: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/utils/lit/lit/llvm/config.py#L410 > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/utils/lit/lit/llvm/config.py#L492 > > Not sure if it's just because these have randomly happened to diverge, or if > the percent for clang indicates that it's not just replaced with a resolved > path, but also might include a few preset options. > Not sure if it's just because these have randomly happened to diverge, or if > the percent for clang indicates that it's not just replaced with a resolved > path, but also might include a few preset options. I think that might have been the intention at some point, but I wouldn't count on it being applied consistently. Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69031/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69031 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
