labath added a comment. In D147606#4249283 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147606#4249283>, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> In D147606#4247462 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147606#4247462>, @jwnhy wrote: > >> In D147606#4246832 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147606#4246832>, @JDevlieghere >> wrote: >> >>> The change looks fine and regardless of whether this makes sense or even >>> complies with the standard, we should be resilient against it. I would like >>> to see a test though. >> >> Thanks a lot for the comment, I am new to lldb community, and got one thing >> a bit silly to ask. >> Up to now, a few patches I submitted is kind of "depending on the >> compiler-generated" binary? >> What am I supposed to do to **ensure the compiler generates these >> "easy-to-fault" binaries in the test?** >> >> Like in this one, not every compiler will generate "empty ranges", and in >> the other one that is "DW_OP_div"... > > Yes, this would require a test that checks in what the compiler generates (as > opposed to the majority of our "API tests" that build test cases from > source). This can either be an assembly file (something like > `dwarf5-implicit-const.s`) or a YAML file created with `obj2yaml` (something > like `section-overlap.yaml`). You may be able to adapt/extend `lldb/test/Shell/SymbolFile/DWARF/x86/debug_ranges.s` Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147606/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147606 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
