Ahh, good to know. Thanks! On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:47 AM Tamas Berghammer <tbergham...@google.com> wrote:
> We already have a test for it in TestConsecutiveBreakpoints.py what is > xfail-ed on all platform because of this bug (http://llvm.org/pr23478). As > far as I see from the build bots the test is also failing on OSX, but it > might fail from a different reason then on Linux/Windows. > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:10 AM Zachary Turner via lldb-commits < > lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Thanks! Do you think you could add a test that does specifically that? >> Set two breakpoints back to back, even in the same function, ane ensure >> that the second one gets hit. If your theory is right this test will fail >> on Windows and Linux (and then we'll have to xfail it) but at least we'll >> have a test that's isolated to the root of the problem. >> >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:47 PM Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> Okay, I think I fixed this, the fix is: r253008. That passes cleanly on >>> Linux for me, but I don't have a windows machine handy to test. >>> >>> What was happening is that originally lldb had a bug where if you were >>> stopped on a breakpoint and then the next instruction also had a >>> breakpoint, the plan that was stepping over the breakpoint would see a stop >>> reason of "trace" so it would think it knew why it stopped and would >>> auto-continue, since that's what you do when you are doing "step over a >>> breakpoint and keep going." >>> >>> I fixed this by having the lower layers of the process plugin correct >>> the stop reason from trace to breakpoint when a trace ended up on another >>> breakpoint, but apparently Linux and Windows don't have this fix. That was >>> done a while ago, so maybe they weren't around then, I have to think about >>> that... >>> >>> Anyway, the old code in ThreadPlanStepRange had a short-cut that if we >>> only needed to go one instruction, it wouldn't do it with a breakpoint, but >>> just stepi. I didn't preserve that in the change I made, so we got into >>> trouble. So for now I just put that short-cut back. >>> >>> I wondered how this managed to cause so many Linux failures, but the OS >>> X testsuite was clean... >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Nov 12, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Ahh, seems it wasn't just Windows that was affected by this. Makes me >>> feel a little better :) >>> > >>> > Posting the link to the buildbot failures here so that Jim can get >>> full logs if it helps. >>> > >>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake/builds/8391 >>> > >>> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:37 PM Ying Chen <chy...@google.com> wrote: >>> > I reverted this patch for now. >>> > Please resubmit if you have a fix. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Ying >>> > >>> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Jim Ingham via lldb-commits < >>> lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> > If you can debug a failing case, and do whatever step operation got >>> you to the wrong place, then run up to that step, and do: >>> > >>> > (lldb) log enable -f <SOMEFILE> lldb step >>> > >>> > and then do the step, then send me that log plus the disassembly for >>> the function you were stepping in and the output of: >>> > >>> > (lldb) image dump line-table <SourceFile> >>> > >>> > for the source file you were stepping in. >>> > >>> > I should be able to see from there why we were stepping to the wrong >>> place. >>> > >>> > Jim >>> > >>> > > On Nov 12, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > The error messages are always different because the error message is >>> printed by the test. I'm going to try to load up the executable for >>> TestStepNoDebug in the debugger and get a disassembly and do the step >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:01 PM Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> >>> wrote: >>> > > Is the line they stepped to - instead of the expected line - always >>> line 0? >>> > > >>> > > Jim >>> > > >>> > > > On Nov 12, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > Hi Jim, >>> > > > >>> > > > This breaks about 12 tests on Windows. The patch looks simple, >>> but this isn't really my area, is there anything I can give you to help >>> diagnose what might be wrong? The following tests fail: >>> > > > >>> > > > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: Test-rdar-9974002.py (Windows zturner-win81 >>> 8 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel) >>> > > > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDataFormatterHexCaps.py (Windows >>> zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, >>> GenuineIntel) >>> > > > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDataFormatterNamedSummaries.py (Windows >>> zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, >>> GenuineIntel) >>> > > > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDataFormatterPythonSynth.py (Windows >>> zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, >>> GenuineIntel) >>> > > > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDataFormatterSynth.py (Windows >>> zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, >>> GenuineIntel) >>> > > > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDiamond.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 >>> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel) >>> > > > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestFormatPropagation.py (Windows >>> zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, >>> GenuineIntel) >>> > > > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestFrames.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 >>> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel) >>> > > > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestInlineStepping.py (Windows zturner-win81 >>> 8 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel) >>> > > > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestSBData.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 >>> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel) >>> > > > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestStepNoDebug.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 >>> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel) >>> > > > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestThreadJump.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 >>> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel) >>> > > > >>> > > > And here's the error I get from one of the failing tests, although >>> I don't know how much insight it provides. >>> > > > >>> > > > Traceback (most recent call last): >>> > > > File >>> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\lldbtest.py", line >>> 536, in wrapper >>> > > > return func(self, *args, **kwargs) >>> > > > File >>> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\lldbtest.py", line >>> 2228, in dwarf_test_method >>> > > > return attrvalue(self) >>> > > > File >>> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\lldbtest.py", line >>> 608, in wrapper >>> > > > func(*args, **kwargs) >>> > > > File >>> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\functionalities\step-avoids-no-debug\TestStepNoDebug.py", >>> line 41, in test_step_in_with_python >>> > > > self.do_step_in_past_nodebug() >>> > > > File >>> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\functionalities\step-avoids-no-debug\TestStepNoDebug.py", >>> line 105, in do_step_in_past_nodebug >>> > > > self.hit_correct_line ("intermediate_return_value = >>> called_from_nodebug_actual(some_value)") >>> > > > File >>> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\functionalities\step-avoids-no-debug\TestStepNoDebug.py", >>> line 57, in hit_correct_line >>> > > > self.assertTrue (cur_line == target_line, "Stepped to line %d >>> instead of expected %d with pattern '%s'."%(cur_line, target_line, pattern)) >>> > > > AssertionError: False is not True : Stepped to line 0 instead of >>> expected 19 with pattern 'intermediate_return_value = >>> called_from_nodebug_actual(some_value)'. >>> > > > Config=i686-d:\src\llvmbuild\ninja_release\bin\clang.exe >>> > > > Session info generated @ Thu Nov 12 15:44:43 2015 >>> > > > To rerun this test, issue the following command from the 'test' >>> directory: >>> > > > >>> > > > If it's not obvious what the problem is, can we revert this until >>> we figure it out and then reland it? >>> > > > >>> > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 2:34 PM Jim Ingham via lldb-commits < >>> lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> > > > Author: jingham >>> > > > Date: Thu Nov 12 16:32:09 2015 >>> > > > New Revision: 252963 >>> > > > >>> > > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=252963&view=rev >>> > > > Log: >>> > > > Another little stepping optimization: if any of the source step >>> commands are running through a range >>> > > > of addresses, and the range has no branches, instead of running to >>> the last instruction and >>> > > > single-stepping over that, run to the first instruction after the >>> end of the range. If there >>> > > > are no branches in the current range, then the bytes right after >>> it have to be in the current >>> > > > function, and have to be instructions not data in code, so this is >>> safe. And it cuts down one >>> > > > extra stepi per source range step. >>> > > > >>> > > > Incidentally, this also works around a bug in the llvm Intel >>> assembler where it treats the "rep" >>> > > > prefix as a separate instruction from the repeated instruction. >>> If that were at the end of a >>> > > > line range, then we would put a trap in place of the repeated >>> instruction, which is undefined >>> > > > behavior. Current processors just ignore the repetition in this >>> case, which changes program behavior. >>> > > > Since there would never be a line range break after the rep >>> prefix, always doing the range stepping >>> > > > to the beginning of the new range avoids this problem. >>> > > > >>> > > > <rdar://problem/23461686> >>> > > > >>> > > > Modified: >>> > > > lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp >>> > > > >>> > > > Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp >>> > > > URL: >>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp?rev=252963&r1=252962&r2=252963&view=diff >>> > > > >>> ============================================================================== >>> > > > --- lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp (original) >>> > > > +++ lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp Thu Nov 12 >>> 16:32:09 2015 >>> > > > @@ -390,12 +390,19 @@ ThreadPlanStepRange::SetNextBranchBreakp >>> > > > if (branch_index == UINT32_MAX) >>> > > > { >>> > > > branch_index = instructions->GetSize() - 1; >>> > > > + InstructionSP last_inst = >>> instructions->GetInstructionAtIndex(branch_index); >>> > > > + size_t last_inst_size = >>> last_inst->GetOpcode().GetByteSize(); >>> > > > + run_to_address = last_inst->GetAddress(); >>> > > > + run_to_address.Slide(last_inst_size); >>> > > > + } >>> > > > + else if (branch_index - pc_index > 1) >>> > > > + { >>> > > > + run_to_address = >>> instructions->GetInstructionAtIndex(branch_index)->GetAddress(); >>> > > > } >>> > > > >>> > > > - if (branch_index - pc_index > 1) >>> > > > + if (run_to_address.IsValid()) >>> > > > { >>> > > > const bool is_internal = true; >>> > > > - run_to_address = >>> instructions->GetInstructionAtIndex(branch_index)->GetAddress(); >>> > > > m_next_branch_bp_sp = >>> GetTarget().CreateBreakpoint(run_to_address, is_internal, false); >>> > > > if (m_next_branch_bp_sp) >>> > > > { >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > lldb-commits mailing list >>> > > > lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org >>> > > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits >>> > > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > lldb-commits mailing list >>> > lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org >>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> lldb-commits mailing list >> lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits >> >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
