Skip to content

[debuginfo-tests] Use built lldb for testing if available #131681

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 19, 2025

Conversation

augusto2112
Copy link
Contributor

The cross-project-tests's debuginfo-tests don't rely on lldb being built to run. While this is a good, a bug in the system lldb can cause a test to fail with no way of fixing it. This patch makes it so the tests use the built lldb instead if it's available.

@augusto2112
Copy link
Contributor Author

@JDevlieghere I imagine there's a better way of doing this, but I couldn't figure out what the right way would be. Any ideas?

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 17, 2025

✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the Python code formatter.

The cross-project-tests's debuginfo-tests don't rely on lldb being
built to run. While this is a good, a bug in the system lldb can
cause a test to fail with no way of fixing it. This patch makes it
so the tests use the built lldb instead if it's available.
@augusto2112 augusto2112 force-pushed the cross-project-built-lldb branch from 07c2b44 to b785ad6 Compare March 17, 2025 22:04
command="LLVM_LIBS_DIR="
+ config.llvm_libs_dir
+ " "
+ os.path.join(
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why don't we pass in the right python executable and the full path to the LLDB python packages here, then there doesn't need to be any guesswork in the other two files.

@augusto2112 augusto2112 merged commit 7cabcdb into llvm:main Mar 19, 2025
9 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants