labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46005#1077016, @zturner wrote:
> Note that there's currently no precedent (that i'm aware of anwyay) in LLVM
> or any of its subprojects for splitting the running of a single file into
> multiple parallel jobs. All of LLVM's other projects p
labath added a comment.
This code itself looks fine, I have just two minor comments.
However, I do have a question about performance. I remember us being very
worried about performance in the past, so we ended up putting in this like
r298876. This removes the normalization step during FileSpec
Author: d0k
Date: Wed Apr 25 06:22:47 2018
New Revision: 330823
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=330823&view=rev
Log:
Fix -Wswitch warning after r330790.
source/Symbol/ClangASTContext.cpp:391:13: error: enumeration value 'HIP' not
handled in switch [-Werror,-Wswitch]
switch (IK.g
Well let’s see what Davide and Adrian think. I’m more of an outsider these
days so consider my perspective an llvm-centric one, which would sometimes
(but not always) be the best for lldb
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:31 AM Pavel Labath via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> labath adde
zturner added a subscriber: labath.
zturner added a comment.
Well let’s see what Davide and Adrian think. I’m more of an outsider these
days so consider my perspective an llvm-centric one, which would sometimes
(but not always) be the best for lldb
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46005
Disregarding the added complexity I believe that being able to communicate the
number of tests filed/passed inside a single file would be very valuable. For
example when one test gets broken by upstream clang changes and it takes a few
days to fix it properly, we don't want to loose signal on th
But is there a reason why that is more valuable with LLDB than it is with
LLVM? In LLVM when a test fails it stops and doesn't run subsequent run
lines. So you have the same issue there. The way this is handled in LLVM
is that if you think tests are sufficiently different that they could be
brok
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 9:08 AM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
> But is there a reason why that is more valuable with LLDB than it is with
> LLVM? In LLVM when a test fails it stops and doesn't run subsequent run
> lines. So you have the same issue there.
That's not a good analogy. Multiple RUN l
Sure multiple run lines can be commands being executed that depend on each
other, but it's very common for a test to have multiple check labels as well
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 9:19 AM Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 9:08 AM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
> But is there a reason why that
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 12:54 AM, Pavel Labath via Phabricator
> wrote:
>
> labath added a comment.
>
> This code itself looks fine, I have just two minor comments.
>
> However, I do have a question about performance. I remember us being very
> worried about performance in the past, so we end
Hi Pavel,
> On Apr 24, 2018, at 3:51 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-commits
> wrote:
>
> Author: labath
> Date: Tue Apr 24 03:51:44 2018
> New Revision: 330708
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=330708&view=rev
> Log:
> [dotest] Make the set of tests independent of the test configurat
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Vedant Kumar wrote:
>
> Hi Pavel,
>
>> On Apr 24, 2018, at 3:51 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-commits
>> wrote:
>>
>> Author: labath
>> Date: Tue Apr 24 03:51:44 2018
>> New Revision: 330708
>>
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=330708&view=rev
>> Lo
clayborg added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45977#1077719, @labath wrote:
> This code itself looks fine, I have just two minor comments.
>
> However, I do have a question about performance. I remember us being very
> worried about performance in the past, so we ended up putting in thi
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 at 19:07, Vedant Kumar wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
> > On Apr 24, 2018, at 3:51 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-commits <
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > +def checkDebugInfoSupport():
> > +import lldb
> > +
> > +platform = lldb.DBG.GetSelectedPlatform().GetTriple().split('-'
jankratochvil updated this revision to Diff 143992.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40475
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lldbinline.py
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lldbtest.py
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/make/Makefile.rules
packages/Python/
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 12:04 PM, Pavel Labath wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 at 19:07, Vedant Kumar wrote:
>
>> Hi Pavel,
>
>>> On Apr 24, 2018, at 3:51 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-commits <
> lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> +def checkDebugInfoSupport():
>>> +import lldb
>>> +
>>> +
aprantl created this revision.
aprantl added a reviewer: jingham.
Move the persistent variable counter into Target so it can be shared across
multiple language plugins.
In a multi-language project it is counterintuitive to have a result
variables reuse numbers just because they are using
clayborg updated this revision to Diff 144021.
clayborg added a comment.
After doing performance tests, the code was 7 to 10 % slower if we didn't check
if a path needs normalization due to the llvm code making arrays of StringRef
objects and appending a path together. Restored and even improved
Author: friss
Date: Wed Apr 25 15:12:12 2018
New Revision: 330877
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=330877&view=rev
Log:
[debugserver] Return 'ios' instead of 'iphoneos' for the ostype.
When I merged the 2 codepaths that return an OS type, I hade
checked that the places accepting 'ipho
aprantl created this revision.
aprantl added a reviewer: jingham.
Refactor GetNextPersistentVariableName into a non-virtual method
that takes a prefix string. This simplifies the implementation and
allows plugins such as the Swift plugin to supply different prefixes
for return and error variables.
20 matches
Mail list logo
