[lldb-dev] [Bug 34590] New: [FreeBSD] lldb is missing ObjectFile plugin to write cores
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34590
Bug ID: 34590
Summary: [FreeBSD] lldb is missing ObjectFile plugin to write
cores
Product: lldb
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: FreeBSD
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: All Bugs
Assignee: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
Reporter: gergely.czu...@harmless.hu
CC: llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org
Hello,
Apparently it seems that the ObjectFile plugins got left out during importing
llvm, and because of this, it's not possible to save the core of the process
currently being debugged:
On aarch64, r322723:
root@build-pine64:/usr/ports/editors/emacs-devel/work/emacs-f44184f# cd lisp
l' -batch --no-site-file --no-site-lisp --eval '(setq load-prefer-newer t)' -f
batch-byte-compile emacs-lisp/macroexp.el
(lldb) target create "../src/bootstrap-emacs"
Current executable set to '../src/bootstrap-emacs' (aarch64).
(lldb) settings set -- target.run-args "-batch" "--no-site-file"
"--no-site-lisp" "--eval" "(setq load-prefer-newer t)" "-f"
"batch-byte-compile" "emacs-lisp/macroexp.el"
(lldb) r
Process 1016 launching
Process 1016 launched: '../src/bootstrap-emacs' (aarch64)
Process 1016 stopped
* thread #1, name = 'bootstrap-emacs', stop reason = signal SIGSEGV: invalid
address (fault address: 0x41b17978)
frame #0: 0x00228460
bootstrap-emacs`xnrealloc(pa=0x, nitems=0,
item_size=1102150015) at alloc.c:939
936 {
937eassert (0 <= nitems && 0 < item_size);
938ptrdiff_t nbytes;
-> 939if (INT_MULTIPLY_WRAPV (nitems, item_size, &nbytes) || SIZE_MAX <
nbytes)
940 memory_full (SIZE_MAX);
941return xrealloc (pa, nbytes);
942 }
(lldb) process save-core /root/foo.core
error: Failed to save core file for process: no ObjectFile plugins were able to
save a core for this process
(lldb)
On amd64 11-STABLE r311927:
$ lldb
(lldb) process attach --pid 54625
Process 54625 stopped
Executable module set to "/usr/bin/systat".
Architecture set to: x86_64--freebsd11.0.
(lldb) process save-core foobar.core
error: Failed to save core file for process: no ObjectFile plugins were able to
save a core for this process
Sharing cores of currently being debugged processes can be very helpful, when
repoting issues with various software. For an example, currently I'm trying to
figure out while emacs-devel segfaults during build on aarch64, and the
autogenerated core is different, due to the process' internal sigsegv handler.
The FreeBSD-side of the report:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] lldb-5.0 on linux not finding lldb-server-5.0.0
At least I did not encounter the below issue on Ubuntu 16.04 (with x86 i.e 32bit) machine with lldb v5.0. FYI, I have built the tool chain from the RELEASE_500/final tag source. > Somebody on stack overflow is reporting: > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46164427/lldb-is-not-starting-an-application > that they got the 5.0 tools on an Ubuntu system, and lldb is saying: > error: process launch failed: unable to locate lldb-server-5.0.0 > when he tries to run a process. The reporter says there's an lldb-server in > the package he got, but not an lldb-server-5.0.0. > Did his install just go bad or is this something other folks are seeing? I > don't have an Ubuntu system handy to check this out. > Jim ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] lldb_private::RegisterContext vs lldb_private::RegisterInfoInterface
Hi Ramana, Looks like just a naming issue - classes derived from RegisterInfoInterface should be named as RegisterInfo_, because they just implement a common interface to access targets's register info structures. Whereas RegisterContext relates to certain execution context and concrete frame, and implements process-specific functions, for example restoring registers state after expression evaluation. Please, correct me anyone, if I'm wrong. Tatyana -Original Message- From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Ramana via lldb-dev Sent: Wednesday, 13 September, 2017 9:00 AM To: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org Subject: [lldb-dev] lldb_private::RegisterContext vs lldb_private::RegisterInfoInterface Hi, When deriving RegisterContext_, why some platforms (Arch+OS) are deriving it from lldb_private::RegisterContext while others are deriving from lldb_private::RegisterInfoInterface or in other words how to decide on the base class to derive from between those two and what are the implications? Thanks, Ramana ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_lldb-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=8NZfjV_ZLY_S7gZyQMq8mj7tiN4vlymPiSt0Wl0jegw&m=YZ3Zmbvj4mvkuTSfZ9-gC0Gi1rMMrrPaSTL8YBCytAM&s=55CKoDxnRsC-dUPbL7T3sQ2HL74C2foFRhvssSATbbw&e= ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
[lldb-dev] [Bug 34594] New: Revisit the failure path for Process::Resume() to avoid leaking Stopped->Running->Stopped events
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34594 Bug ID: 34594 Summary: Revisit the failure path for Process::Resume() to avoid leaking Stopped->Running->Stopped events Product: lldb Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P Component: All Bugs Assignee: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org Reporter: mose...@google.com CC: llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org Jim Ingham re. https://reviews.llvm.org/D37651 : "This looks okay for now. It will end up sending a Running & then a Stopped event. That's a little awkward, but that happens in the ordinary course of debugging anyway so it shouldn't freak anybody out. It would be better to find a place where this can be fixed before we send the running event, but that's going to take more thinking, and I don't see that desire should block this patch. But can you file another PR to go figure out how to fix this closer to the source, so we don't forget to fix this next time we're in the bowels of the process event code?" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
