[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r276220 - Fix an issue where LLDB would detect an empty shared cache - which is legitimate albeit suboptimal - and warn about being unable to fetch ObjC class information, even t

2016-07-20 Thread Enrico Granata via lldb-commits
Author: enrico Date: Wed Jul 20 19:13:40 2016 New Revision: 276220 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=276220&view=rev Log: Fix an issue where LLDB would detect an empty shared cache - which is legitimate albeit suboptimal - and warn about being unable to fetch ObjC class information, e

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r276166 - Fix typo in test runner

2016-07-20 Thread Francis Ricci via lldb-commits
Author: fjricci Date: Wed Jul 20 14:37:31 2016 New Revision: 276166 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=276166&view=rev Log: Fix typo in test runner Modified: lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/decorators.py Modified: lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/decorators.py UR

[Lldb-commits] Buildmaster restart in few minutes

2016-07-20 Thread Galina Kistanova via lldb-commits
Hello everyone, LLVM buildmaster will be restarted in few minutes. Thank you for understanding. Thanks Galina ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r276132 - If x/i is followed by x/g, the format should be reset to 'x'.

2016-07-20 Thread Jim Ingham via lldb-commits
Author: jingham Date: Wed Jul 20 10:41:12 2016 New Revision: 276132 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=276132&view=rev Log: If x/i is followed by x/g, the format should be reset to 'x'. Otherwise, you have to say "x/gx" to what you obviously intended to happen to happen. Modified:

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D21328: [lldb] Fixed incorrect endianness when evaluating certain expressions

2016-07-20 Thread Cameron via lldb-commits
cameron314 added a comment. @spyffe, do you have a minute today? https://reviews.llvm.org/D21328 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D20357: [LLDB][MIPS] Fix FPU Size Based on Dynamic FR

2016-07-20 Thread Nitesh Jain via lldb-commits
nitesh.jain marked 8 inline comments as done. nitesh.jain added a comment. https://reviews.llvm.org/D20357 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D22463: [RFC] Moving to GitHub Proposal: NOT DECISION!

2016-07-20 Thread Justin Lebar via lldb-commits
jlebar added a comment. Hi, Renato. Just to explain why I'm going to go forward with this RFC about a monolithic repository: From speaking with some top contributors on IRC, I have heard that they feel that the discussion of whether to move to git has been conflated with the discussion of how

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D20357: [LLDB][MIPS] Fix FPU Size Based on Dynamic FR

2016-07-20 Thread Nitesh Jain via lldb-commits
nitesh.jain updated this revision to Diff 64693. nitesh.jain added a comment. Removed dynamic_size_dwarf_len field from RegisterInfo struct. https://reviews.llvm.org/D20357 Files: include/lldb/Host/common/NativeRegisterContext.h include/lldb/Host/common/NativeRegisterContextRegisterInfo.h

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D22463: [RFC] Moving to GitHub Proposal: NOT DECISION!

2016-07-20 Thread Renato Golin via lldb-commits
rengolin accepted this revision. rengolin added a reviewer: rengolin. rengolin added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. I'm auto accepting this proposal, as it seems to have ran its course. The commit is r276097. If anyone has any additional comment/suggestion, please su

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D22463: [RFC] Moving to GitHub Proposal: NOT DECISION!

2016-07-20 Thread Renato Golin via lldb-commits
rengolin added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#489483, @jlebar wrote: > Again, we can make this work with submodules, but it's a giant pain, see my > earlier comment. (...) > I've read as many of these as I can find in the past few hours, and every > argument I have found is, i

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D22463: [RFC] Moving to GitHub Proposal: NOT DECISION!

2016-07-20 Thread Justin Lebar via lldb-commits
jlebar added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#489461, @rengolin wrote: > You will not be required to use submodules at all, as we'll all use the > individual projects, like we have always been. I don't understand why people > keep going back to it. There is a key use case that is