Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "clangcl".
Did you mean:
clang
2017 Sep 07
2
Status of debuginfo-tests
....o
// RUN: %clangxx %target_itanium_abi_host_triple %t.o -o %t.out
// RUN: %test_debuginfo %s %t.out
// Radar 8945514
// DEBUGGER: break 22
// DEBUGGER: r
// DEBUGGER: p v
// CHECK: ${{[0-9]+}} =
// CHECK: Data ={{.*}} 0x0{{(0*)}}
// CHECK: Kind = 2142
// win/aggregate-indirect-arg.s
// RUN: %clangcl /Z7 %i /c /Fo%t.obj
// RUN: %lld-link /DEBUG %t.obj /out:%t.lld.exe
// RUN: %run_windbg %t.lld.exe %s
// RUN: %ms-link /DEBUG:FASTLINK %t.obj /out:%t.fastlink.exe
// RUN: %run_windbg %t.fastlink.exe %s
// DEBUGGER: bp 22
// DEBUGGER: g
// DEBUGGER: dt v
// CHECK: Local var {{.*}} Type SVal
// CHECK...
2017 Sep 07
2
Status of debuginfo-tests
That's true, but it still requires the person writing the test to be
familiar with both formats. Also anything more trivial than dumping a
single local variable will probably run into even more issues.
For example, The expression parsers each have their own unique quirks, and
it might not always be easy to translate.
Besides all the format compatibility issues, there's the more general