[lldb-dev] [Bug 34419] TopLevelExpressionsTestCase-test_top_level_expressions_dwarf fails on fedora

[via lldb-dev]

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34419

lab...@google.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
 Status|NEW |RESOLVED

--- Comment #5 from lab...@google.com ---
I'm pretty sure this is a duplicate of 28353 (and partially also of 27787).
I'll add more info there.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 28353 ***

-- 
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

[lldb-dev] PowerPC64 disassembler

[Ana Julia Pereira Caetano via lldb-dev]

Hi,

I was taking a look at the disassembler on PowerPC64.

Usually, when we have a branch instruction, it shows the address of the target.
For example (function "ret1" in X86_64):
GDB: 0x0040051d <+45>: callq 0x4004e0 
LLDB: 0x40051d <+45>: callq 0x4004e0 ; ret1

However, LLDB doesn't do that in PPC64:
GDB: 0x1658 <+72>: bl 0x1670 
LLDB: 0x1658 <+72>: bl .+67108760

(Note that the comment "; ret1" is missing).

I noticed that LLDB on PPC64 is the only one that prints ".+" and the offset 
(which is unsigned in this case, that's why it shows that strange number).
Why is it like this? Is there any special reason?
I was thinking about changing it and make it look more like the other ones, but 
first I want to know if that's ok or if it should stay the way it is for some 
reason.

Thank you,
Ana Julia
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] PowerPC64 disassembler

[Greg Clayton via lldb-dev]

> On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Ana Julia Pereira Caetano via lldb-dev 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I was taking a look at the disassembler on PowerPC64.
> 
> Usually, when we have a branch instruction, it shows the address of the 
> target. 
> For example (function “ret1” in X86_64):
> GDB: 0x0040051d <+45>: callq 0x4004e0  
> LLDB: 0x40051d <+45>: callq 0x4004e0 ; ret1 
> 
> However, LLDB doesn’t do that in PPC64:
> GDB: 0x1658 <+72>: bl 0x1670  
> LLDB: 0x1658 <+72>: bl .+67108760 
> 
> (Note that the comment "; ret1" is missing).
> 
> I noticed that LLDB on PPC64 is the only one that prints “.+” and the offset 
> (which is unsigned in this case, that’s why it shows that strange number). 
> Why is it like this? Is there any special reason? 
> I was thinking about changing it and make it look more like the other ones, 
> but first I want to know if that’s ok or if it should stay the way it is for 
> some reason.

This would be a question for the LLVM folks since we get the disassemblers from 
LLVM and just use them in LLDB. LLDB uses the LLVM disassembler and it will ask 
us to identify addresses during disassembly via a callback. So it seems you 
will need to change the LLVM disassembler to do something similar to the x86_64 
callq instruction. Not exactly sure how it is done, but probably should't be 
too hard.

Greg

> Thank you,
> Ana Julia 
> ___
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org 
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev 
> 
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev