nelhage added a comment.
Hey -- Is there anything I can do to move this patch forward? Would it help to
do something like only setting the attribute if the mangled name that *would*
be generated doesn't match the one from the DWARF? Any such symbol is already
broken for lldb, so such a patch fe
eugene updated this revision to Diff 129216.
eugene marked an inline comment as done.
eugene added a comment.
Addressing code review comments. Switching from manual symbol resolution to
the appropriate overload of CreateBreakpoint.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41533
Files:
packages/Python/ll
eugene marked 5 inline comments as done.
eugene added inline comments.
Comment at:
source/Plugins/DynamicLoader/POSIX-DYLD/DynamicLoaderPOSIXDYLD.cpp:365-368
+static const char *DebugStateCandidates[] = {
+"_dl_debug_state", "rtld_db_dlactivity", "__dl_rtld_db_dlacti
Author: jmolenda
Date: Tue Jan 9 14:17:10 2018
New Revision: 322128
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=322128&view=rev
Log:
This change updates the deployment target for lldb and debugserver
(built with Xcode) from 10.9 to 10.11. It also enables the use of
libcompression in debugserver
> On Jan 9, 2018, at 6:24 AM, Pavel Labath via Phabricator
> wrote:
>
> labath added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41584#970945, @tatyana-krasnukha wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Pavel.
>> Would you mind if I move LLVMCDisassembler declaration in .cpp also? It
>> looks like perfect ca
> On Jan 9, 2018, at 6:51 AM, Michał Górny via Phabricator via lldb-commits
> wrote:
>
> mgorny added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41725#970926, @labath wrote:
>
>> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41725#969388, @mgorny wrote:
>>
>>> I was talking of:
>>>
>>> source/Plugins/Pro
jingham accepted this revision.
jingham added a comment.
Yup, this is a bit of complexity that it isn't worth supporting.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41871
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman
clayborg added a comment.
I like the overall direction this patch is taking, just a few fixes.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41584
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
clayborg requested changes to this revision.
clayborg added inline comments.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Comment at: source/Plugins/Disassembler/llvm/DisassemblerLLVMC.cpp:77-83
+ std::unique_ptr m_instr_info;
+ std::unique_ptr m_reg_info;
+ std::unique_ptr
tatyana-krasnukha updated this revision to Diff 129127.
tatyana-krasnukha added a comment.
Added function Create that creates an instance of LLVMCDisassembler only if
pass all constraints.
Moved LLVMCDisassembler declaration to .cpp file, renamed to MCDisasmToolset
(is this name ok?).
Added cons
davide accepted this revision.
davide added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
No objections from me. Thanks.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41871
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cg
labath created this revision.
labath added reviewers: jingham, clayborg, davide.
This used to be important when all tests were run in a single process,
but that has no longer been the case for a while. Furthermore, this hook fails
to build on new mac versions for several people, and it's not clear
On 9 January 2018 at 15:26, Davide Italiano wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Pavel Labath wrote:
>> The inheritance trick can be useful sometimes, but I don't think it's
>> a good way to write tests in general (and it should not be necessary
>> for this patch).
>>
>> I assume you ran into
clayborg added a comment.
Looks fine. Set the breakpoint using the list of names and delete the
breakpoint if you get no locations and this will be good to go.
Comment at:
source/Plugins/DynamicLoader/POSIX-DYLD/DynamicLoaderPOSIXDYLD.cpp:365-368
+static const char *Debug
jhibbits added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#971012, @labath wrote:
> Hmm.. that complicates things a bit. How badly is it broken, do you estimate?
> Would it be any better than if we just made your new plugin handle the the
> big-endian target as well (just a best effort, I'm n
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Pavel Labath wrote:
> The inheritance trick can be useful sometimes, but I don't think it's
> a good way to write tests in general (and it should not be necessary
> for this patch).
>
> I assume you ran into this while working on a real-world bug. How were
> the rel
labath added subscribers: emaste, krytarowski, ted.
labath added a comment.
I'm adding some people with non-linux non-x86/arm targets who use this plugin
for more visibility. I have a couple of small comments, but in general, I am
happy with this.
Comment at:
packages/Python
mgorny added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41725#970926, @labath wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41725#969388, @mgorny wrote:
>
> > I was talking of:
> >
> > source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunication.cpp
> > source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicati
This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state "Needs
Review".
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL322081: [test] Fix tests to use more portable
LLVM_ENABLE_ZLIB (authored by mgorny, committed by ).
Herald added a subscri
Author: mgorny
Date: Tue Jan 9 06:44:04 2018
New Revision: 322081
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=322081&view=rev
Log:
[test] Fix tests to use more portable LLVM_ENABLE_ZLIB
The HAVE_LIBZ variable is not exported by LLVM, and therefore is not
available in stand-alone builds of other
labath added subscribers: jhibbits, emaste.
labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#970887, @alexandreyy wrote:
> Thanks, @labath .
> The ABI plugin for PPC64be is not working: https://reviews.llvm.org/D5988 .
> It was implemented based on the x86_64 plugin and needs to be fi
labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41584#970945, @tatyana-krasnukha wrote:
> Thank you, Pavel.
> Would you mind if I move LLVMCDisassembler declaration in .cpp also? It
> looks like perfect candidate for pimpl.
Yes, that sounds like a good idea.
> And... doesn't Disassemble
tatyana-krasnukha added a comment.
Thank you, Pavel.
Would you mind if I move LLVMCDisassembler declaration in .cpp also? It looks
like perfect candidate for pimpl.
And... doesn't DisassemblerLLVMC::LLVMCDisassembler confuse anyone but me?)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41584
__
Author: labath
Date: Tue Jan 9 05:22:22 2018
New Revision: 322075
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=322075&view=rev
Log:
TestConflictingSymbols: simplify test by using run_break_set_by_source_regexp
follow-up to r321271 based on post-commit feedback by Jim Ingham.
Modified:
lldb
labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41725#969388, @mgorny wrote:
> I was talking of:
>
> source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunication.cpp
> source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationClient.cpp
Ah, right. These uses were introduced before we develop
The inheritance trick can be useful sometimes, but I don't think it's
a good way to write tests in general (and it should not be necessary
for this patch).
I assume you ran into this while working on a real-world bug. How were
the relevant ArchSpecs constructed there? The class is fairly simple,
s
On 4 January 2018 at 09:00, Carlos Alberto Enciso via Phabricator via
lldb-commits wrote:
> CarlosAlbertoEnciso added a comment.
>
> I have some issues running the LLDB Test Suite in 32-bit and 64-bit mode.
>
> From the LLDB documentation:
>
> https://lldb.llvm.org/test.html
>
> It is possible t
labath requested changes to this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
I think this makes the code hard to read. A much better approach would be to
use `Expected` + factory function pattern. So you would have something like:
Expected> LLVMCDisassemble
alexandreyy added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#970844, @labath wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#969294, @hfinkel wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#969179, @labath wrote:
> >
> > > Is the only difference between ppc64 and ppc64le ABIs in the endianness
>
labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#969294, @hfinkel wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#969179, @labath wrote:
>
> > Is the only difference between ppc64 and ppc64le ABIs in the endianness of
> > the values?
> > If so, could we make one unified ABI which takes th
30 matches
Mail list logo
