debuginfo/macro-stepping test: extend comments #149525
Merged
+6
−0
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Collaborator
|
rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum. Use |
Member
I want to say we do, but only in |
Member
|
r? me @bors r+ rollup |
Collaborator
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 2, 2025
Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - #145628 ([std][BTree] Fix behavior of `::append` to match documentation, `::insert`, and `::extend`) - #149241 (Fix armv4t- and armv5te- bare metal targets) - #149470 (compiletest: Prepare ignore/only conditions once in advance, without a macro) - #149507 (Mark windows-gnu* as lacking build with assertions) - #149508 (Prefer helper functions to identify MinGW targets) - #149516 (Stop adding MSYS2 to PATH) - #149525 (debuginfo/macro-stepping test: extend comments) - #149526 (Add myself (mati865) to the review rotation) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 2, 2025
Rollup merge of #149525 - RalfJung:debuginfo-test-comments, r=jieyouxu debuginfo/macro-stepping test: extend comments Those `#locN` markers look like they are debuginfo compiletest magic (since `#break` is debuginfo compiletest magic). However, they are actually just magic strings used by the `check` commands in the test itself. This threw me off when I looked at the test (prompted by a CI failure), so let's leave a comment for the next poor soul that ends up lost in this test. Also, for some reason the lldb instructions do not check for `#loc6`, unlike the gdb instructions. I do not know of an lldb version that actually makes the test pass (do we even run it with lldb at all on CI?), so I won't try to add a check for loc6, but let's at least add a comment to increase the chance that someone more knowledgeable about lldb and our test suite notices this in the future.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Those
#locNmarkers look like they are debuginfo compiletest magic (since#breakis debuginfo compiletest magic). However, they are actually just magic strings used by thecheckcommands in the test itself. This threw me off when I looked at the test (prompted by a CI failure), so let's leave a comment for the next poor soul that ends up lost in this test.Also, for some reason the lldb instructions do not check for
#loc6, unlike the gdb instructions. I do not know of an lldb version that actually makes the test pass (do we even run it with lldb at all on CI?), so I won't try to add a check for loc6, but let's at least add a comment to increase the chance that someone more knowledgeable about lldb and our test suite notices this in the future.