[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D154907: [LLDB] Fix buffer overflow problem in DWARFExpression::Evaluate (2nd attempt)

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG3885ceafa934: [LLDB] Fix buffer overflow problem in DWARFExpression::Evaluate (authored by cmtice). Herald added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. Repository: rG LLVM Github Mono

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D127702: Support logpoints in lldb-vscode

cmtice added a comment. Just FYI, this commit appears to cause lldb//test/API/commands/target/auto-install-main-executable/TestAutoInstallMainExecutable.py to fail. The error I'm seeing is: Traceback (most recent call last): File "../lldb/test/API/commands/target/auto-install-main-executab

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D127702: Support logpoints in lldb-vscode

cmtice added a comment. I apologize; I was looking at several commits, and I accidentally added my comment to the wrong one. No, this commit is not the one that caused my problem (I am very sorry about the confusion). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://r

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D128152: [lldb] [llgs] Support multiprocess in qfThreadInfo

cmtice added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: JDevlieghere. Just FYI, this commit appears to cause lldb//test/API/commands/target/auto-install-main-executable/TestAutoInstallMainExecutable.py to fail. The error I'm seeing is: Traceback (most recent call last): File "../lldb/test/API/comm

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D126513: Add -b (--continue-to-breakpoint) option to the "process continue" command

cmtice added a comment. This appears to have broken a lot of LLDB tests in our bootstrap as well. Is there any chance this might get reverted? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126513/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126513

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D126513: Add -b (--continue-to-breakpoint) option to the "process continue" command

cmtice added a comment. Ignore my revert request; Your later commit seems to have fixed most of my issues. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126513/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126513 ___

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D148151: [lldb] Add 'CHECK' to class-type-nullptr-deref.s test.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGbe58b42a7510: [lldb] Add 'CHECK' to class-type-nullptr-deref.s test. (authored by cmtice). Herald added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHA

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D149397: Host: generalise `GetXcodeSDKPath`

cmtice added a comment. I'm seeing the same build failures reported by mgorny. Would you consider reverting this patch until you can fix it? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D149397/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D149397 __

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D150019: [lldb] Fix language label in ObjC Language unittest

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG123f939c14f7: [lldb] Fix language label in ObjC Language unittest (authored by cmtice). Herald added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGE

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D153840: [LLDB] Fix buffer overflow problem in DWARFExpression::Evaluate.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGee476996bec7: [LLDB] Fix buffer overflow problem in DWARFExpression::Evaluate. (authored by cmtice). Herald added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. Changed prior to commit: https

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D153840: [LLDB] Fix buffer overflow problem in DWARFExpression::Evaluate.

cmtice added a comment. Herald added subscribers: Michael137, JDevlieghere. I updated the version that I committed to use 'sizeof' as recommended. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D153840/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D153840 _

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D153840: [LLDB] Fix buffer overflow problem in DWARFExpression::Evaluate.

cmtice marked an inline comment as done. cmtice added a comment. Hi Jason, I had been talking more with David, and yes, I had come to the conclusion that you are both right and that this was not the right fix. I am planning on reverting this, but I am trying to figure out the right fix to repl

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D104826: Replace SVE_PT* macros in NativeRegisterContextLinux_arm64.{cpp, h} with their equivalent defintions in LinuxPTraceDefines_arm64sve.h

This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds. This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG05915400b7f9: [lldb] Replace SVE_PT* macros in NativeRegisterContextLinux_arm64.{cpp,h} with… (authored by cmtice). Herald added a project: LLDB. Her

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice created this revision. cmtice added a reviewer: jingham. Herald added subscribers: cishida, hiraditya. Herald added a reviewer: int3. Herald added a project: lld-macho. Herald added a reviewer: lld-macho. cmtice requested review of this revision. Herald added a reviewer: jdoerfert. Herald ad

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice updated this revision to Diff 327523. cmtice added a comment. Upload the correct patch this time. (sorry!) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D97786/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D97786 Files: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARF.cpp Index: lldb/sou

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice added a comment. It is true that the compiler will not know where the final executable will be placed, and if the executable gets moved then debugging with .dwo files will probably not work anyway, However as it is currently written, LLDB will fail to find the .dwo files, *even when th

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice added a comment. I'm not sure about using target.debug-file-search-paths, and what the changes Pavel is suggesting would entail. But the real question I am trying to resolve here is not "what are all the places we should be searching for the .dwo files?" but "When we're given a *relativ

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice updated this revision to Diff 328191. cmtice added a comment. Update to incorporate Pavel's suggested simplification. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D97786/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D97786 Files: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARF.cpp Inde

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice added a comment. In D97786#2607275 , @labath wrote: > In D97786#2603656 , @cmtice wrote: > >> I'm not sure about using target.debug-file-search-paths, and what the >> changes Pavel is suggesting would entail

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice added a comment. It has taken a bit of time to get through the GDB reviews, but the change to GDB was accepted and committed: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-cvs/2021-April/050267.html May I commit this change to LLDB now? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D977

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice updated this revision to Diff 336276. cmtice added a comment. Herald added a reviewer: alexshap. Add a test case. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D97786/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D97786 Files: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARF.cpp lldb/tes

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice added a comment. Pavel, your last comment lost me completely. How can I test the code I added to lldb if I don't run lldb? I am a complete newbie at writing test cases so there's probably something basic I'm missing? How would I observe the value of the variable without running lldb?

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice updated this revision to Diff 337622. cmtice added a comment. Update test case to use lldb on .o file and not run the inferior. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D97786/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D97786 Files: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARF.

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice added a comment. I did leave 'main' in the .s file, but it's not very big. Is this ok now? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D97786/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D97786 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds. This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGb241f3cb292d: [LLDB] Use path relative to binary for finding .dwo files. (authored by cmtice). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice added a comment. I had to revert this change because the test case broke the windows builder. What's the right way to update/mark the test case so that it is only run on appropriate architectures & operating systems? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION ht

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice added a comment. Hi Pavel, Thank you for both the detailed explanation and the updated test case (and thank you Jim for your recommendations as well!). I'm testing the updated test case now. Assuming the tests pass, is it ok for me to re-land this CL using the updated test case? and

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D97786: LLDB: Use path relative to binary, not relative to debugger CWD, for finding .dwo files.

cmtice added a comment. Pavel's test case passed on my local machine (x86_64 linux workstation). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D97786/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D97786 ___ lldb-commits