Details
Diff Detail
Event Timeline
It would be good if there were a test for both switches, but I don't see an existing explicit test for -s. Are you okay adding one?
P.S. Don't forget to add some reviewers to your reviews on Phabricator!
Thanks for the test. It's a good start, but there are several issues with it:
- Don't rely on pre-canned binaries that are for other not-really-related tests. You would be better off using yaml2obj to create a test input, specific to this test. This makes it clearer what is important to the test, and leads to a less fragile test, because modifying the other test won't break this test. Take a look at test/tools/llvm-objcopy/basic-copy.test for a good example of how to create the test input at test-time.
- Assuming you are using yaml2obj, you will probably need to put comment markers at the start of each CHECK, like the RUN lines.
- You need to call FileCheck to actually run the CHECKs in your file.
- You might want to pipe the output of the two llvm-objdump calls to a file, and then compare them to show that both options produce the same output (FileCheck will only check the things you check, and not the things you don't check).
- "CHECK: " with no output after it does not do anything. If you are really interested in the blank line, you should use CHECK-EMPTY.
- Use "CHECK-NEXT:" to check that the next line is actually on the next line of the output. "CHECK:" simply checks that the pattern is somewhere later in the file than teh previous one.
Here's an incomplete example of what you might want to do:
# RUN: yaml2obj %s > %t # RUN: llvm-objdump --full-contents %t > %t.out1 # RUN: llvm-objdump -s %t > %t.out2 # RUN: cmp %t.out1 %t.out2 # RUN: FileCheck %s --input-file=%t.out1 # CHECK: some stuff # CHECK-NEXT: some more stuff ## etc !ELF FileHeader: ## the rest of the yaml here.
The test is looking better now. I have a few comments about the sections you are putting in it, inline.
test/tools/llvm-objdump/full-contents.test | ||
---|---|---|
24 | .bss sections are usually of type SHT_NOBITS, and as such shouldn't have contents. Is there a particular reason you have broken with convention here? | |
33 | Let's make the content of this section really small, say 4 bytes. Then use FileCheck to check that the dump contains the bytes expected. It doesn't need to contain valid strings or executable instructions for this test to be good. | |
34 | Make sure the section size matches the content size for our test. | |
35 | Same comments for .text. I'd also give it different content to the other section, so that you can show that each section has the correct content dumped. | |
46–51 | I think you can probably get rid of this symbol. It doesn't add anything to this test. |
Thanks, I am reading the ELF format these days. So, I may make some stupid mistakes, sorry for that .
LGTM.
Do you need me to commit it?
I have one inlined query about formatting. If you haven't clang-formatted the area, please do so before committing.
tools/llvm-objdump/llvm-objdump.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
119–124 | Have you clang-formatted this area? |
Thanks a lot,
The formatted one is
cl::opt<bool> llvm::SectionContents("full-contents", cl::desc("Display the content of each section")); static cl::alias SectionContentsShort("s", cl::desc("Alias for --full-contents"), cl::aliasopt(SectionContents));
but I format it as previous function DynamicRelocations
.bss sections are usually of type SHT_NOBITS, and as such shouldn't have contents. Is there a particular reason you have broken with convention here?