[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r285781 - Fix SBWatchpoint::SetEnabled to send an event.

Author: jingham Date: Tue Nov 1 20:06:42 2016 New Revision: 285781 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=285781&view=rev Log: Fix SBWatchpoint::SetEnabled to send an event. We really shouldn't be sending events for SB API's, dunno when we started doing that. We don't do it for other thin

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r285761 - Xfail this while I figure out why the event isn't getting sent.

Author: jingham Date: Tue Nov 1 17:53:54 2016 New Revision: 285761 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=285761&view=rev Log: Xfail this while I figure out why the event isn't getting sent. Modified: lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/watchpoint/watchpoint_even

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r285749 - Add missing #include.

Author: zturner Date: Tue Nov 1 16:08:34 2016 New Revision: 285749 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=285749&view=rev Log: Add missing #include. Modified: lldb/trunk/include/lldb/Host/FileSpec.h Modified: lldb/trunk/include/lldb/Host/FileSpec.h URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-pr

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r285742 - Switch SBWatchpoint::SetEnabled over to using Process::{Enable, Disable}Watchpoint.

Author: jingham Date: Tue Nov 1 15:37:02 2016 New Revision: 285742 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=285742&view=rev Log: Switch SBWatchpoint::SetEnabled over to using Process::{Enable,Disable}Watchpoint. We don't have a good story for what happens to watchpoints when you don't have

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r285736 - Add helpers for the notion of a type scavenger that is "either this or that" source, and one that is "both this and that" source

Author: enrico Date: Tue Nov 1 15:17:14 2016 New Revision: 285736 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=285736&view=rev Log: Add helpers for the notion of a type scavenger that is "either this or that" source, and one that is "both this and that" source Use the helper to rewrite the ObjC

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26190: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal two

mehdi_amini added a comment. Just to clarify: I don't have a dog in this, I'm just lurking here to learn something, and I'm curious about the tradeoff. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26190#585059, @labath wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26190#585016, @mehdi_amini wrote: > > > > Does that ma

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26209: Fix windows build after r285702, missing include to define PATH_MAX

Ilod created this revision. Ilod added reviewers: labath, zturner, clayborg. Ilod added a subscriber: lldb-commits. Fix the windows build after r285702. The removal of TimeValue.h inclusion removed the inner inclusion of PosixApi.h, which defined PATH_MAX on windows, used by many other files. Add

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r285727 - Implement a general type scavenger that can dig types from debug info + a filtering mechanism to accept/reject results thusly obtained

Author: enrico Date: Tue Nov 1 13:50:49 2016 New Revision: 285727 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=285727&view=rev Log: Implement a general type scavenger that can dig types from debug info + a filtering mechanism to accept/reject results thusly obtained Implement the C++ type looku

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r285726 - change ProcessAttach test to no-debug-info

Author: tfiala Date: Tue Nov 1 13:50:34 2016 New Revision: 285726 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=285726&view=rev Log: change ProcessAttach test to no-debug-info Fixes: https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3103 Modified: lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/pr

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26190: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal two

labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26190#585016, @mehdi_amini wrote: > > Does that make sense? > > This makes sense (assuming static linking reduces some possibility though) I am not sure we are on the same page here. What is the scenario you have in mind here? I am not forbi

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26190: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal two

mehdi_amini added a comment. > Does that make sense? This makes sense (assuming static linking reduces some possibility though), but LLVM is not robust to mix and match build settings: building half of the source with -DNDEBUG and not the other is likely to cause weird runtime failures. That c

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26190: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal two

jingham added a comment. Note that in this proposal, lldb is doing pretty much the same thing that libclang does. libclang exports its specific functionality but makes no attempt to export the llvm classes it uses. The only difference is that lldb exports a tightly controlled C++ API, whereas

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26190: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal two

labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26190#584933, @mehdi_amini wrote: > OK! > > How is it different from the other proposal? In the other proposal, using a > LLVM class in the API boundary would break the same way under the same > conditions, or did I miss something? In the o

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26190: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal two

mehdi_amini added a comment. OK! How is it different from the other proposal? In the other proposal, using a LLVM class in the API boundary would break the same way under the same conditions, or did I miss something? Something that isn't clear to me with this proposal, is how a user supposed t

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26190: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal two

labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26190#584882, @mehdi_amini wrote: > > and has potential to introduce latent bugs. > > Can you elaborate on this? If some of the duplicated objects get passed across the api boundary, things will start to break, although the breakage may not

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26190: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal two

mehdi_amini added a comment. > and has potential to introduce latent bugs. Can you elaborate on this? https://reviews.llvm.org/D26190 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-comm

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

labath added a comment. Ok, I guess we're leaning towards option two then, which is more-or-less status quo as well. I am going to leave this open for a while in case anyone has more input. Todd, for you this means that you cannot export *all* symbols from liblldb, as that would break the link

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26171: [LLDB] Fix RHEL 6 build and some Include What You Use warnings

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL285710: Fix RHEL 6 build with missing cerrno and some other Include What You Use… (authored by eugenezelenko). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26171?vs=76495&id=76590#toc Repository:

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r285710 - Fix RHEL 6 build with missing cerrno and some other Include What You Use warnings.

Author: eugenezelenko Date: Tue Nov 1 12:11:10 2016 New Revision: 285710 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=285710&view=rev Log: Fix RHEL 6 build with missing cerrno and some other Include What You Use warnings. Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26171 Modified: lld

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

zturner added a comment. BTW, in general static linking on Windows is "bad", but as long as no SBI API header directly or indirectly includes an LLVM header, and there is no LLVM usage on the API boundary, it should be ok IIUC. https://reviews.llvm.org/D26188 ___

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26190: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal two

clayborg accepted this revision. clayborg added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. I prefer this solution for now over exporting all of llvm. The other solution introduces fragility in a shared library that currently vends a solid reliable API. https://reviews.llvm.org

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26188#584710, @zturner wrote: > On Windows if you have a DLL (.so) that links against a .lib (.a), and an EXE > links against both the DLL and the .lib, then both the DLL and the EXE will > each get their own private copy of the symbols in th

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

clayborg requested changes to this revision. clayborg added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed. I would rather not see us export everything in LLVM. The gentleman's agreement doesn't enforce anything and this will cause crashes when people try to launch a tool against a dif

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

zturner added a comment. On Windows if you have a DLL (.so) that links against a .lib (.a), and an EXE links against both the DLL and the .lib, then both the DLL and the EXE will each get their own private copy of the symbols in the lib, and the linker won't try to merge them. Do I understand

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D25392: Remove TimeValue usage from FileSpec.h

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL285702: Remove TimeValue usage from FileSpec.h (authored by labath). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25392?vs=76573&id=76576#toc Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D2539

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r285702 - Remove TimeValue usage from FileSpec.h

Author: labath Date: Tue Nov 1 11:11:14 2016 New Revision: 285702 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=285702&view=rev Log: Remove TimeValue usage from FileSpec.h Summary: The only usage there was in GetModificationTime(). I also took the opportunity to move this function from FileSpec t

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D25392: Remove TimeValue usage from FileSpec.h

labath updated this revision to Diff 76573. labath marked 2 inline comments as done. labath added a comment. - cleanup constructors - use llvm's stat() implementation https://reviews.llvm.org/D25392 Files: include/lldb/Core/Module.h include/lldb/Core/ModuleSpec.h include/lldb/Core/SourceM

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D25392: Remove TimeValue usage from FileSpec.h

labath added inline comments. Comment at: include/lldb/Host/FileSystem.h:69-71 + static std::chrono::time_point + GetModificationTime(const FileSpec &file_spec); labath wrote: > zturner wrote: > > I wonder if it would be worth defining some typedefs in LLVM's `

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r285698 - Minidump plugin: Fix flaky test

Author: dvlahovski Date: Tue Nov 1 10:48:24 2016 New Revision: 285698 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=285698&view=rev Log: Minidump plugin: Fix flaky test Summary: One of the tests was flaky, because similarly to https://reviews.llvm.org/D18697 (rL265391) - if there is a process run

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26193: Minidump plugin: Fix flaky test

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL285698: Minidump plugin: Fix flaky test (authored by dvlahovski). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26193?vs=76560&id=76568#toc Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D26193

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

labath added a comment. I thought removing it will cause it to export everything. If it doesn't, then we can put whatever magic is necessary there. :) Although, if exporting everything does require some fancy linker flags, then I probably wouldn't make it the default. https://reviews.llvm.org

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

tfiala added a comment. > @zturner wrote: > Can I have some background? What is the linking problem? Hi Zachary, This review has comments that pretty much cover it exhaustively: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26093 That'd be a good place to start. https://reviews.llvm.org/D26188 __

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26193: Minidump plugin: Fix flaky test

labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. lgtm https://reviews.llvm.org/D26193 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lld

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

tfiala added inline comments. Comment at: source/API/CMakeLists.txt:109 else() -# Don't use an explicit export. Instead, tell the linker to -# export all symbols. > This does not affect affect the state of backtracing. The option to export > all symb

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

See . Basically the problem is that we are pulling in llvm symbols twice into lldb-mi (once in liblldb, and once in lldb-mi proper). This was causing runtime errors if we did not have the "linker firewall" in place. I am proposing to either make sure things build w

Re: [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r285587 - Minidump plugin: Adding ProcessMinidump, ThreadMinidump and register the plugin in SystemInitializerFull

Hi, Chris, thanks for the heads-up. Pavel - yes, this is the case, and I have a patch that fixes it - https://reviews.llvm.org/D26193 On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Pavel Labath wrote: > Thanks for the heads-up, Chris. > > Dimitar, > we have had a similar problem for elf core file tests, whe

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26188#584614, @tfiala wrote: > I'll let Greg comment on the public ABI expansion (i.e. including llvm of a > specific version, which may differ from LLDB.framework clients that contain > different versions of LLVM). My guess is this is not g

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26193: Minidump plugin: Fix flaky test

dvlahovski created this revision. dvlahovski added a reviewer: labath. dvlahovski added subscribers: beanz, lldb-commits. One of the tests was flaky, because similarly to https://reviews.llvm.org/D18697 (https://reviews.llvm.org/rL265391) - if there is a process running which is with the same PID

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

Can I have some background? What is the linking problem? On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:16 AM Todd Fiala wrote: > tfiala added a comment. > > I'll let Greg comment on the public ABI expansion (i.e. including llvm of > a specific version, which may differ from LLDB.framework clients that > contain diffe

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

tfiala added a comment. I'll let Greg comment on the public ABI expansion (i.e. including llvm of a specific version, which may differ from LLDB.framework clients that contain different versions of LLVM). My guess is this is not going to work for us, since we have long-lived frameworks shipped

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26190: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal two

labath created this revision. labath added reviewers: beanz, zturner, tfiala, clayborg, abidh. labath added a subscriber: lldb-commits. Herald added subscribers: mgorny, ki.stfu. This "solves" the ODR violations by making the linker firewall a feature. llvm libraries used by liblldb are considered

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

labath created this revision. labath added reviewers: beanz, zturner, tfiala, clayborg, abidh. labath added a subscriber: lldb-commits. Herald added subscribers: mgorny, ki.stfu. This solves the ODR violations by exporting all symbols in the llvm namespace to all users of liblldb, which can then a

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26170: Find clang resource directory via *nix-style lookup

labath added a comment. looks good in general, but please check whether this is correct with LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX=64. Comment at: source/Host/posix/HostInfoPosix.cpp:176 + file_spec, + llvm::Twine("/lib/clang/", llvm::StringRef(CLANG_VERSION_STRING)).str()); +} ---

Re: [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r285587 - Minidump plugin: Adding ProcessMinidump, ThreadMinidump and register the plugin in SystemInitializerFull

Thanks for the heads-up, Chris. Dimitar, we have had a similar problem for elf core file tests, where lldb would get confused if we get a running process with the same pid as the core file. I fixed this in , and I suspect you will need a similar fix for your Proces

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26171: [LLDB] Fix RHEL 6 build and some Include What You Use warnings

labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. thanks Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D26171 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi