[lldb][test] Turn std::atomic libcxx test generic

[Michael137]

Split out from #146740

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb

Author: Michael Buch (Michael137)

Changes

Split out from #146740

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146843.diff

3 Files Affected:

• (renamed) lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/generic/atomic/Makefile (-2)
• (renamed) lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/generic/atomic/TestStdAtomic.py (+15-8)
• (renamed) lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/generic/atomic/main.cpp ()

diff --git a/lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libcxx/atomic/Makefile b/lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/generic/atomic/Makefile
similarity index 51%
rename from lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libcxx/atomic/Makefile
rename to lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/generic/atomic/Makefile
index b016f006747da..99998b20bcb05 100644
--- a/lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libcxx/atomic/Makefile
+++ b/lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/generic/atomic/Makefile
@@ -1,5 +1,3 @@
 CXX_SOURCES := main.cpp
-CXXFLAGS_EXTRAS := -std=c++11
-USE_LIBCPP := 1
 
 include Makefile.rules
diff --git a/lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libcxx/atomic/TestLibCxxAtomic.py b/lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/generic/atomic/TestStdAtomic.py
similarity index 84%
rename from lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libcxx/atomic/TestLibCxxAtomic.py
rename to lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/generic/atomic/TestStdAtomic.py
index c6592ede03147..b0df8a525d280 100644
--- a/lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libcxx/atomic/TestLibCxxAtomic.py
+++ b/lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/generic/atomic/TestStdAtomic.py
@@ -9,18 +9,15 @@
 from lldbsuite.test import lldbutil
 
 
-class LibCxxAtomicTestCase(TestBase):
+class StdAtomicTestCase(TestBase):
     def get_variable(self, name):
         var = self.frame().FindVariable(name)
         var.SetPreferDynamicValue(lldb.eDynamicCanRunTarget)
         var.SetPreferSyntheticValue(True)
         return var
 
-    @skipIf(compiler=["gcc"])
-    @add_test_categories(["libc++"])
-    def test(self):
-        """Test that std::atomic as defined by libc++ is correctly printed by LLDB"""
-        self.build()
+    def do_test(self):
+        """Test that std::atomic is correctly printed by LLDB"""
         self.runCmd("file " + self.getBuildArtifact("a.out"), CURRENT_EXECUTABLE_SET)
 
         bkpt = self.target().FindBreakpointByID(
@@ -31,8 +28,6 @@ def test(self):
 
         self.runCmd("run", RUN_SUCCEEDED)
 
-        lldbutil.skip_if_library_missing(self, self.target(), re.compile(r"libc\+\+"))
-
         # The stop reason of the thread should be breakpoint.
         self.expect(
             "thread list",
@@ -66,3 +61,15 @@ def test(self):
         self.expect(
             "frame var p.child.parent", substrs=["p.child.parent = {\n  Value = 0x"]
         )
+
+    @skipIf(compiler=["gcc"])
+    @add_test_categories(["libc++"])
+    def test_libcxx(self):
+        self.build(dictionary={"USE_LIBCPP" : 1})
+        self.do_test()
+
+    @skipIf(compiler=["gcc"])
+    @add_test_categories(["libstdcxx"])
+    def test_libstdcxx(self):
+        self.build(dictionary={"USE_LIBSTDCPP" : 1})
+        self.do_test()
diff --git a/lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libcxx/atomic/main.cpp b/lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/generic/atomic/main.cpp
similarity index 100%
rename from lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libcxx/atomic/main.cpp
rename to lldb/test/API/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/generic/atomic/main.cpp

[github-actions]

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

[github-actions]

✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the C/C++ code formatter.

[labath]

The libstdc++ test fails. Maybe we don't even have a formatter for std::atomic there? It currently looks like:

(std::atomic<int>) i = {
  std::__atomic_base<int> = {
    _M_i = 47
  }
}

.. which isn't that bad. Much better than libc++'s

(std::__1::atomic<int>) i = {
  std::__1::__atomic_base<int, true> = {
    std::__1::__atomic_base<int, false> = {
      __a_ = {
        std::__1::__cxx_atomic_base_impl<int> = {
          __a_value = 47
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

We may still want to have a data formatter for consistency, but I suspect that's not what you're looking to do now. Maybe just move this part into the generic folder, but don't add the libstdc++ test case yet?

[labath]

Btw, I've recently learned that synthetic child providers don't have to provide just children. They can also provide "values" of the object (get_value in python, I don't know how it's surfaced in c++). std::atomic would be a prime candidate for that.. just in case you're interested :)

I think it would turn

(std::atomic<int>) i = {
  Value = 47
}

into

(std::atomic<int>) i = 47

[Michael137]

The libstdc++ test fails. Maybe we don't even have a formatter for std::atomic there? It currently looks like:

(std::atomic<int>) i = {

  std::__atomic_base<int> = {

    _M_i = 47

  }

}

.. which isn't that bad. Much better than libc++'s

(std::__1::atomic<int>) i = {

  std::__1::__atomic_base<int, true> = {

    std::__1::__atomic_base<int, false> = {

      __a_ = {

        std::__1::__cxx_atomic_base_impl<int> = {

          __a_value = 47

        }

      }

    }

  }

}

We may still want to have a data formatter for consistency, but I suspect that's not what you're looking to do now. Maybe just move this part into the generic folder, but don't add the libstdc++ test case yet?

Huh I'm surprised that's what it looks like for libc++ tbh. Not sure what our formatter is doing.

For libstdc++ we dont have a formatter. I think that's the case for a decent number of our libcxx formatters. My plan was to just XFAIL. But just omitting the libstdc++ category entirely for the unsupported formatters seems better

[Michael137]

Heh looks like the LibCxxAtomic formatter doesn't support post-cxx03 layouts. Lets fix that separately

[labath]

Huh I'm surprised that's what it looks like for libc++ tbh. Not sure what our formatter is doing.

No, that was the raw output. I was just putting it there to show that the libstdc++ output (where we only have the raw output) isn't that bad, which reduces the motivation to have the formatter in the first place.

[Michael137]

Huh I'm surprised that's what it looks like for libc++ tbh. Not sure what our formatter is doing.

No, that was the raw output. I was just putting it there to show that the libstdc++ output (where we only have the raw output) isn't that bad, which reduces the motivation to have the formatter in the first place.

Ahh gotcha. Makes sense