[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D128612: RISC-V big-endian support implementation

djtodoro added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: luke. Hi! I wondering if someone knows what is the status of this. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128612/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128612

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D128612: RISC-V big-endian support implementation

djtodoro added a comment. In D128612#4345912 , @asb wrote: > In D128612#4337037 , @djtodoro > wrote: > >> Hi! I am wondering if someone knows what is the status of this. > > I've not seen any further progress. I

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D128612: RISC-V big-endian support implementation

djtodoro added a comment. In D128612#4349291 , @asb wrote: > In D128612#4349259 , @djtodoro > wrote: > >> In D128612#4345912 , @asb wrote: >> >>> In D128612#4337037

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG9f6ff07f8a39: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default (authored by djtodoro). Herald added subscribers: lldb-commits, cfe-commits, jrtc27. Herald added projects: clang, LLDB. Changed

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. Reverted due to http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu/builds/21373/steps/build-stage3-compiler/logs/stdio. I will reland this as soon as I fix the issue. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro marked an inline comment as done. djtodoro added inline comments. Comment at: llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ScheduleDAGSDNodes.cpp:870 if (MI->isCandidateForCallSiteEntry() && -DAG->getTarget().Options.EnableDebugEntryValues) +DAG->getTarget().Option

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. Thanks for reporting that, are you sure this was the cause of the failure? I'll revert this while investigate, but it does not seem to me this is related to this patch. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro updated this revision to Diff 245123. djtodoro added a comment. -Addressing the latest comments CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534 Files: clang/include/clang/Basic/CodeGenOptions.def clang/include/clang/Driver/CC1Option

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. I’ve already reverted the patch, but I’ll reland it again tomorrow. Thanks. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro updated this revision to Diff 245345. djtodoro added a comment. - Address the issue with ARM `describeLoadedValue()` (thanks to @vsk, I've reduced the test `llvm/test/DebugInfo/MIR/ARM/dbgcallsite-noreg-is-imm-check.mir`) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534/new

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. In D73534#1882118 , @dstenb wrote: > In D73534#1881353 , @nickdesaulniers > wrote: > > > As a heads up, Linaro's ToolChain Working Group's Linux kernel CI lit up on > > this change. I see

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. In D73534#1883022 , @nickdesaulniers wrote: > In D73534#1882136 , @djtodoro wrote: > > > - Address the issue with ARM `describeLoadedValue()` (thanks to @vsk, I've > > reduced the test >

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. @ostannard Thanks for reporting that! Please share the case. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https:

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. Nice! Thanks! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. Reverted again with rG2f215cf36adc . The investigation is needed. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. In D73534#1915048 , @mstorsjo wrote: > This broke compiling for mingw, repro.c: > > a(short); > b() { a(1); } > > > `clang -target x86_64-w64-mingw32 -c repro.c -g -O2`, which gives `Assertion > '!MI.isMoveImmediate() && "Une

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. In D73534#1916291 , @djtodoro wrote: > In D73534#1915048 , @mstorsjo wrote: > > > This broke compiling for mingw, repro.c: > > > > a(short); > > b() { a(1); } > > > > > > `clang -target

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. In D73534#1916309 , @djtodoro wrote: > In D73534#1916291 , @djtodoro wrote: > > > In D73534#1915048 , @mstorsjo > > wrote: > > > > > This broke com

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. Why reverting this one? Is it a different assertion? The D75036 was the problem with the previous issue reported. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534 ___

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. Since we landed the fix for the issue related to the D75036 , I'll reland this again. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534 ___ l

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. Re-enabled with the d9b962100942 . If we face a failure again, since this enables the whole feature, I recommend reverting smaller pieces of the feature that was causing the problem, rather than reve

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. In D73534#1933985 , @djtodoro wrote: > Oh sorry, I thought it all has been fixed, since all the tests pass. > > We should revert the D75036 until we fix > all the issues. @dstenb do you agree?

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. Oh sorry, I thought it all has been fixed, since all the tests pass. We should revert the D75036 until we fix all the issues. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73534 ___

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D73534: [DebugInfo] Enable the debug entry values feature by default

djtodoro added a comment. In D73534#1934105 , @vsk wrote: > In D73534#1933988 , @djtodoro wrote: > > > In D73534#1933985 , @djtodoro > > wrote: > > > > > Oh sorry, I thought

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D77108: [lldb/DWARF] Fix evaluator crash when accessing empty stack

djtodoro added a comment. In D77108#1952818 , @aprantl wrote: > For the future, a clean solution would be extending the macros in Dwarf.def > to list the stack effects in the definitions of the DW_OP_*, for example > > // opcode, name, version, vendor,

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93939: [elf-core] Improve reading memory from core file

djtodoro created this revision. djtodoro added reviewers: labath, JDevlieghere. djtodoro added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: pengfei. djtodoro requested review of this revision. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. This patch tries to improve memory-read from core files (in order

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93939: [elf-core] Improve reading memory from core file

djtodoro added a comment. (@labath Sorry for late response, I've been away from keyboard for some time.) > Have you by any chance learned why are we zero-filling this buffer in the > first place? Seems like an odd thing to do... Maybe we should just stop > zero-filling completely? Hmm... not s

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93939: [elf-core] Improve reading memory from core file

djtodoro updated this revision to Diff 317873. djtodoro edited the summary of this revision. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939 Files: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/elf-core/ProcessElfCore.cpp lldb/test/API/functionalities/postmorte

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93939: [elf-core] Improve reading memory from core file

djtodoro updated this revision to Diff 318464. djtodoro added a comment. nfc CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939 Files: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/elf-core/ProcessElfCore.cpp lldb/test/API/functionalities/postmortem/elf-core/Tes

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93939: [elf-core] Improve reading memory from core file

djtodoro added a comment. > Regarding the test, would it be possible to reuse one of the existing core > files? (The reason we have so few core tests is because we used to not allow > checked in core files at all -- now we kinda do, but it's still not ideal.) > I'm guessing you don't even need

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93939: [elf-core] Improve reading memory from core file

djtodoro added a comment. > Another option would be to ditch disassembling, and check this via memory > reads, as that is what you are actually fixing +1, nice! thanks! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939 __

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93939: [elf-core] Improve reading memory from core file

djtodoro updated this revision to Diff 320483. djtodoro added a comment. - Test update CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939 Files: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/elf-core/ProcessElfCore.cpp lldb/test/API/functionalities/postmortem/el

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93939: [elf-core] Improve reading memory from core file

djtodoro added a comment. @labath Thanks for the review! I'll land this tomorrow. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93939: [elf-core] Improve reading memory from core file

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG9abd8c1a4c38: [elf-core] Improve reading memory from core file (authored by djtodoro). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/new/ https://revi

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D79491: [lldb] Revive TestBasicEntryValuesX86_64

djtodoro added a comment. Thanks a lot for this! > Nevertheless, I am still interested in making assembly-based tests for this > (and similar features) because it enables testing scenarios that we could not > get (reliably or at all) a compiler to produce. I also think this would be more stabl

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D79491: [lldb] Revive TestBasicEntryValuesX86_64

djtodoro added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/test/API/functionalities/param_entry_vals/basic_entry_values/TestBasicEntryValues.py:5 + +supported_archs = ["x86_64", "arm", "aarch64"] + I haven't refreshed the page before submitting my previous comment. WDYT

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D79491: [lldb] Revive TestBasicEntryValuesX86_64

djtodoro added a comment. In D79491#2024771 , @labath wrote: > In D79491#2024647 , @djtodoro wrote: > > > Thanks a lot for this! > > > > > Nevertheless, I am still interested in making assembly-based tests for > >

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D79491: [lldb] Revive TestBasicEntryValuesX86_64

djtodoro accepted this revision. djtodoro added a comment. > It'd be nice to have a skipUnlessEntryValuesSupportedArch decorator, but I > don't think that has to be folded into this change. OK. I agree. LGTM. Thanks! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://r

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D80345: [DwarfExpression] Support entry values for indirect parameters

djtodoro added inline comments. Comment at: llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfExpression.h:149 +EntryValue = 1 << 0, +IndirectEntryValue = 1 << 1, +CallSiteParamValue = 1 << 2 vsk wrote: > aprantl wrote: > > Would it make more sense call this `Indirect

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D80345: [DwarfExpression] Support entry values for indirect parameters

djtodoro added a comment. Great! Thanks! I think we should update the `LangRef.rst` (entry_values section) as well. In addition, can we add a test case checking MIR output after `LiveDebugValues`? Comment at: llvm/test/DebugInfo/MIR/AArch64/dbgcall-site-indirect-param.mir:18

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D80345: [DwarfExpression] Support entry values for indirect parameters

djtodoro accepted this revision. djtodoro added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM, thanks! Comment at: llvm/test/DebugInfo/MIR/AArch64/dbgcall-site-indirect-param.mir:18 +# CHECK-NEXT: [0x, 0x0010): DW_OP_breg0 W0+0 +#

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68206: [clang] Remove the DIFlagArgumentNotModified debug info flag

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGce1f95a6e077: Reland "[clang] Remove the DIFlagArgumentNotModified debug info flag" (authored by djtodoro). Herald added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. Repository: rG LLVM Git

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68209: [LiveDebugValues] Introduce entry values of unmodified params

djtodoro added a comment. Thanks for the reviews! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68209/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68209 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68209: [LiveDebugValues] Introduce entry values of unmodified params

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG4cfceb910692: [LiveDebugValues] Introduce entry values of unmodified params (authored by djtodoro). Herald added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. Repository: rG LLVM Github Mono

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68209: [LiveDebugValues] Introduce entry values of unmodified params

djtodoro added a comment. Reverted while investigating. I am not sure what happened, since the test passed on my machine. Thanks! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68209/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68209 _

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D68209: [LiveDebugValues] Introduce entry values of unmodified params

djtodoro marked an inline comment as done. djtodoro added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/param_entry_vals/basic_entry_values_x86_64/main.cpp:159 // FUNC11-BT: func11_tailcalled{{.*}} // FUNC11-BT-NEXT: func12{{.*}} [artific

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D72489: [DWARF] Emit DW_AT_call_return_pc as an address

djtodoro added inline comments. Comment at: llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfCompileUnit.cpp:984-991 // from one function to another. if (DD->getDwarfVersion() == 4 && DD->tuneForGDB()) { assert(PCAddr && "Missing PC information for a call"); addLabelAddress(CallS

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D72489: [DWARF] Emit DW_AT_call_return_pc as an address

djtodoro added inline comments. Comment at: llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfCompileUnit.cpp:990 +assert(PCAddr && "Missing return PC information for a call"); +addLabelAddress(CallSiteDIE, dwarf::DW_AT_call_return_pc, PCAddr); } Why don't we use the `