JDevlieghere marked an inline comment as done.
JDevlieghere added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/tools/lldb-repro/lldb-repro.h.cmake:12
+
+#cmakedefine LLDB_TEST_EXECUTABLE "${LLDB_TEST_EXECUTABLE}"
+
----------------
labath wrote:
> JDevlieghere wrote:
> > labath wrote:
> > > labath wrote:
> > > > Are you sure this will work fine with multi-config generators? You
> > > > might be better off just relying on the fact that the lldb executable
> > > > will sit right next to this binary...
> > > Actually how, is this thing going to be invoked exactly? Couldn't the
> > > path to lldb be passed simply as argv[1]?
> > It just needs patching up like lldb-dotest and lit. Assuming you mean
> > `argv[0]`, it think we could make that work if I replace "%lldb" with a
> > path to lldb-repro.
> No, I really meant argv[1]. :)
>
> The idea was that `%lldb` would expand to `/src/path/to/lldb-repro.py
> /build/path/to/lldb.exe --whatever`. That way, you wouldn't need to rely on
> the "same directory" trick and could get rid of all the cmake code. In fact,
> we could even throw in a `--capture/--replay` argument to the command line,
> and ditch the environment variables too...
I like the idea but FindTool is a class that's resolved by lit, and the
arguments are strings. So I kept the current approach that expects to find
`lldb` next to `lldb-repro`.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72823/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72823
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
