labath wrote: > > I saw that, but a textual test is definitely preferable, particularly after > > the linux xz fiasco. This wouldn't be the first test binary in our repo, > > but in this case, I think it actually adds a lot of value, since yaml2obj > > operates on the same level as what you are testing (so you can see the > > input of the test eyeball-verify that the expected output makes sense). > > :-) Fair point (though this is very much not like the xz incident — I'm a > colleague of Jonas's at Apple, albeit in a different team, with a fairly > longstanding history of contributing to OSS projects, and doing something > like that would be… very career limiting). > > I'll have a go at changing things to use `yaml2obj`.
The new test looks great. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90099 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
