vsk updated this revision to Diff 166534.
vsk added a comment.
As discussed offline, print out a note when stepping out of a frame with
artificial ancestors explaining that they were skipped while stepping out. See
the added test: functionalities/tail_call_frames/thread_step_out_message.
https
vsk planned changes to this revision.
vsk added a comment.
While testing this out, I found an issue with CallEdge::GetReturnPCAddress.
Getting the load address there adds an unnecessary slide to the PC. I'll try to
have that worked out next week.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: labath, jingham, JDevlieghere.
Herald added subscribers: eraman, aprantl.
Set the "mydir" attribute of an inline test on the test-specific class,
instead of on the base InlineTest class.
This makes it possible to run dotest.py on a directory contain
vsk updated this revision to Diff 167038.
vsk added a comment.
The bug I thought I saw in CallEdge::GetReturnPCAddress turned out to be an
issue I introduced in dsymutil. It's not correct for dsymutil to relocate the
return PC value in TAG_call_site entries, because the correct section slide
of
vsk updated this revision to Diff 167148.
vsk marked an inline comment as done.
vsk added a comment.
- Use std::make_shared(...), instead of StackFrameSP(new ...).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/API/SBFrame.h
lldb/include/lldb/Core/FormatEntity.h
lldb/include/lld
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/source/Target/StackFrameList.cpp:331
+dfs(next_callee);
+if (ambiguous)
+ return;
aprantl wrote:
> On what path can this happen? Aren't all paths that set `ambiguous=true`
> returning immediate
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFUnit.cpp:431
const size_t num_ranges =
-die->GetAttributeAddressRanges(dwarf, this, ranges, false);
+die->GetAttributeAddressRanges(dwarf, this, ranges, check_hi_lo_pc);
if (num_
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARFDebugMap.cpp:1531
+ if (m_compile_unit_infos.size() > 1)
+return 0;
+
sgraenitz wrote:
> sgraenitz wrote:
> > Skipping AddOSOARanges() here.
> > Could you leave an in-sourc
vsk added a comment.
Friendly ping.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
vsk added a comment.
Could you describe how the test exercises DW_FORM_implicit_const support? It's
not immediately clear to me.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52689
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin
vsk updated this revision to Diff 168155.
vsk marked an inline comment as done.
vsk added a comment.
- Address feedback from Adrian.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/API/SBFrame.h
lldb/include/lldb/Core/FormatEntity.h
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Block.h
lldb/include
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h:304
+public:
+ CallEdge(const char *mangled_name, lldb::addr_t return_pc);
+
aprantl wrote:
> Does this also work for C functions? If yes, would `symbol_name` be a more
> accurate descri
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h:304
+public:
+ CallEdge(const char *mangled_name, lldb::addr_t return_pc);
+
aprantl wrote:
> vsk wrote:
> > vsk wrote:
> > > aprantl wrote:
> > > > Does this also work for C functions? I
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dosep.py:1693
for core in cores:
dst = core.replace(test_directory, "")[1:]
dst = dst.replace(os.path.sep, "-")
Instead of redefining test_directory, please use 'test_sub
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/target_var/globals.ll:1
+source_filename = "globals.c"
+target datalayout = "e-m:o-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
Should we check in bitcode instead? That might make it easie
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/target_var/globals.ll:1
+source_filename = "globals.c"
+target datalayout = "e-m:o-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
davide wrote:
> vsk wrote:
> > Should we check in bitcode in
vsk added a comment.
Ping?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50155
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478#1262710, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> Unfortunately, the bots are broken because of the FileCheck issue, so I can't
> confirm with them, but I see a number of these tests fail in our local
> testing. Some fail on both Windows and Linux and s
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: stella.stamenova, zturner.
This allows bots which haven't updated to pass in --filecheck to dotest.py to
run more tests. FileCheck-dependent tests will continue to fail.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53175
Files:
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test
vsk updated this revision to Diff 169471.
vsk added a comment.
- Address comments from @stella.stamenova
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53175
Files:
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/configuration.py
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lldbtest.p
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, lgtm.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53415
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53731#1276732, @zturner wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53731#1276660, @jingham wrote:
>
> > Could you also use Vedant's new FileCheck dotest test class? That should
> > allow you to write the tests exactly as you are, but use the dotest
vsk accepted this revision as: vsk.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, lgtm.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54385
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.
vsk added a subscriber: filcab.
vsk added a comment.
For compiling/linking, I think we can get by using lit substitutions to fill in
platform-specific options? iOS testing for Swift is done this way (both
on-device and simulator), as is testing for the profiling runtime. Dan and
@filcab are mor
vsk added a comment.
+ 1 to this. If there's a tidy plugin for misleading indention, that might
address some of Adrian's concerns.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55574/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55574
_
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, lgtm!
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55761/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55761
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-comm
vsk added a comment.
Looks like a nice/reasonable cleanup, thanks!
Based on the coverage report
(https://teemperor.de/lldb-coverage/coverage/Users/vsk/src/llvm.org-lldbsan/llvm/tools/lldb/source/Breakpoint/BreakpointList.cpp.html#L217)
and benchmarks (https://teemperor.de/lldb-bench/static.html
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: jingham, davide, labath, zturner.
This teaches lldb-test how to launch a process, set up an IRMemoryMap,
and issue memory allocations in the target process through the map. This
makes it possible to test IRMemoryMap in a targeted way.
The main motiv
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: tools/lldb-test/lldb-test.cpp:503
+ uint8_t Alignment;
+ int Matches = sscanf(Line.data(), "malloc %lu %hhu", &Size, &Alignment);
+ if (Matches != 2)
labath wrote:
> is `Line` null-terminated here? Also a size_t arg shoul
vsk updated this revision to Diff 149159.
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added a comment.
- Use %zu, and improve detection of overlapping allocations.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47508
Files:
lit/Expr/TestIRMemoryMap.test
source/Target/Process.cpp
tools/lldb-test/lldb-test.cpp
vsk updated this revision to Diff 149173.
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added a comment.
- Really fix the allocation overlap test. The previous version of this patch
would not detect overlaps in which the end of the new allocation is contained
within an existing allocation.
> The
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: labath, zturner, jingham, aprantl.
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
This prevents Malloc from allocating the same chunk of memory twice, as
a byproduct of an alignment adjustment which gave the client access to
unallocated memory.
Prior to t
vsk updated this revision to Diff 149198.
vsk added a reviewer: lhames.
vsk added a comment.
- Don't insert extra padding bytes when `alignment` = 1.
- + Lang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47551
Files:
lit/Expr/Inputs/ir-memory-map-basic.test
lit/Expr/Inputs/ir-memory-map-overlap1.test
lit/Ex
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47551#1117086, @lhames wrote:
> LGTM.
>
> I haven't looked at process memory management. How hard would your FIXME be
> to implement?
After looking at this more carefully, I think the FIXME makes a bad
prescription. It's based on the assumptio
vsk updated this revision to Diff 149355.
vsk marked 2 inline comments as done.
vsk added a comment.
- Address Pavel's feedback, remove a questionable FIXME.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47551
Files:
lit/Expr/Inputs/ir-memory-map-basic.test
lit/Expr/Inputs/ir-memory-map-overlap1.test
lit/Exp
vsk created this revision.
vsk added a reviewer: labath.
Change the syntax of the malloc and free commands in lldb-test's
ir-memory-map subcommand to:
::= = malloc
::= free
This should make it easier to read and extend tests in the future, e.g
to test IRMemoryMap::WriteMemory or dou
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119396, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> While you are at it, can you make sure this works on Windows? The current
> version of the test that is checked in fails.
Sorry about that. Could you point me to the error message?
https://reviews.llv
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119479, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119471, @vsk wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119396, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> >
> > > While you are at it, can you make sure this works on Windows? Th
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119487, @vsk wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119479, @stella.stamenova wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119471, @vsk wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119396, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> > >
>
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119512, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> I can look into the failure - but can you XFAIL the test rather than skipping
> it and log a bug, so that we can track the failure rather than potentially
> assuming down the line that the test is not me
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM, thanks!
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48450
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cg
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, LGTM. This looks pretty cut and dry. The evaluator shouldn't try to
take the address of an rvalue.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48303
___
lldb-co
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: labath, jasonmolenda, tberghammer.
Clarify how StackFrameList works by documenting its methods. Also,
delete some dead code and insert some TODOs.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50087
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/Target/StackFrameList.h
lldb/source/Tar
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50087#1183982, @labath wrote:
> I am not too familiar with this code, but the descriptions seem to make sense.
>
> However, since you have kind of opened up the `Optional` discussion, I'll use
> this opportunity to give my take on it:
>
> I've wa
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: aprantl, jasonmolenda.
Herald added subscribers: chrib, krytarowski, mgorny, srhines.
This code looks like a good reference for building a new unwinder, but
is currently unused, so there's no need to keep it.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50155
Files:
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, LGTM.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50149
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
vsk added a comment.
Thanks for doing this :)!
Comment at: source/Symbol/CompileUnit.cpp:111
// TODO: order these by address
m_functions.push_back(funcSP);
}
Is m_functions used to do anything crucial?
I see a use in Dump, but it seems like you could re
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: teemperor, lhames.
Profiling data show that Allocation::operator= is hot, see:
https://teemperor.de/lldb-bench/data/arithmetic.svg
Reorder a few fields within Allocation to avoid implicit structure
padding and shrink the structure. This should ma
vsk updated this revision to Diff 159339.
vsk retitled this revision from "[IRMemoryMap] Shrink Allocation by
sizeof(addr_t) (NFC)" to "[IRMemoryMap] Shrink Allocation make it move-only
(NFC)".
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added a comment.
- Make Allocation move-only. This should
vsk created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: JDevlieghere.
This is a prototype of tail call frame support for lldb based on
compiler support from https://reviews.llvm.org/D49887. It isn't ready for
review. I'm sharing the
proof-of-concept to give a heads-up about this coming down the pip
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, LGTM!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50225
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
vsk updated this revision to Diff 160224.
vsk added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: mgrang.
Rebase, and update the patch to use DW_AT_call_return_pc information.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Block.h
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h
lldb/include/
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, looks good with nitpicks.
Comment at: unittests/Core/RangeTest.cpp:139
+ RangeT r;
+ // FIXME: This is probably not intended.
+ EXPECT_TRUE(r.ContainsEndInclusive(0));
-
vsk updated this revision to Diff 160666.
vsk retitled this revision from "WIP: Basic tail call frame support" to "Add
support for artificial tail call frames".
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added reviewers: aprantl, probinson, JDevlieghere, jingham, friss, zturner.
vsk removed subs
vsk created this revision.
This patch isn't quite ready for review. It's a simple proof-of-concept which
shows what it would take to make FileCheck available within lldb inline tests.
I'll kick off a discussion about this on lldb-dev.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50751
Files:
lldb/packages/Pyt
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/Language/CPlusPlus/LibCxx.cpp:46
+ // Member __f_ has type __base*, the contents of which will either directly
+ // hold a pointer to the callable object or vtable entry which will hold the
+ // type information need to dis
vsk added a comment.
Thanks so much for doing this!
Comment at: lit/Suite/lit.cfg:28
+ resource_dir = subprocess.check_output(config.cmake_cxx_compiler +
+ ' -print-resource-dir', shell=True)
+ runtime = os.path.join(resource_dir[:-1],
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
(LGTM with the second comment addressed.)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50997
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.o
vsk accepted this revision as: vsk.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, LGTM!
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50481
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM. This is NFC, it seems. There's a FIXME in Preprocessor.h about the
lifetime of SelectorTable eventually not being tied to Preprocessor, but this
is correct for now.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
vsk added a comment.
Ping.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h:331
+ /// \ref resolved.
+ union {
+const char *mangled_name;
aprantl wrote:
> `llvm::PointerUnion` ?
It's not possible to use PointerUnion here because `const char *` has 1-byte
al
vsk updated this revision to Diff 162416.
vsk marked 4 inline comments as done.
vsk added a comment.
Thanks for the feedback!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Block.h
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/SymbolFile.h
lldb/include/ll
vsk updated this revision to Diff 162491.
vsk retitled this revision from "WIP: Expose FileCheck-style testing within
lldb inline tests" to "Allow use of self.filecheck in LLDB tests (c.f
self.expect)".
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added reviewers: teemperor, aprantl, zturner.
vsk
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/Disassembler/llvm/DisassemblerLLVMC.h:81
+ struct Guard {
+DisassemblerLLVMC *m_instance;
+Guard(DisassemblerLLVMC *instance, InstructionLLVMC *inst,
This is nice. Do you think it might be even safer
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
Looks great, thanks!
Comment at: source/Plugins/Disassembler/llvm/DisassemblerLLVMC.cpp:176
bool got_op = false;
-std::shared_ptr disasm_sp(GetDisassembler());
-if (disasm_sp) {
- const ArchSpec &arch = disasm_s
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libcxx/variant/TestDataFormatterLibcxxVariant.py:70
+self.expect("frame variable v_no_value",
+substrs=['v_no_value = No Value'])
vsk added a comment.
I think it'd be useful to test the driver output specifically. The kind of
testing lldb-test facilitates might not be a good fit here (too low-level).
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51930
___
lldb-commits m
vsk added a comment.
This LGTM. Davide?
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51930
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
vsk added a comment.
Please clang-format your diffs.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51520
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
vsk updated this revision to Diff 165613.
vsk marked 6 inline comments as done.
vsk added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: mgorny.
Sorry for the delay, I was busy with other work. I think I've addressed the
review feedback. PTAL.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50751
Files:
lldb/CMakeLists.tx
vsk updated this revision to Diff 166378.
vsk added a comment.
I've added SB API support (SBFrame::IsArtificial), a SB API test, fleshed out
the remaining tests, and rebased. PTAL, thanks!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/API/SBFrame.h
lldb/include/lldb/Core/FormatE
vsk planned changes to this revision.
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478#1241264, @jingham wrote:
> Can you add a test that makes sure that when you stop in a frame that has
> artificial frames above it, and then you do "finish", or "step out" past the
> end of frame 0, the
vsk updated this revision to Diff 166394.
vsk added a comment.
Teach SBThread::StepOut and SBThread::ReturnFromFrame to behave as-if
artificial frames were not present.
This preserves the current behavior of "finish" and "thread return". The
alternatives -- stepping out into an artificial frame
vsk added a comment.
The general approach sgtm, and the patch itself looks reasonable.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40745
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
vsk created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: mgorny.
Various part of lldb make use of anonymous structs and unions. In every case
I've seen the usage is idiomatic, and doesn't deserve a warning.
For example, logic in the NSDictionary and NSSet plugins use anonymous structs
in a manner
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40757#943483, @labath wrote:
> If the "excuse" for not following llvm here is that these structs mirror
> apple headers, should we restrict these warnings only to the relevant files
> (e.g. everything in `source/Plugins/Language/ObjC`)?
>
> I do
vsk created this revision.
Null-checking functions which aren't marked 'weak_import' is a no-op
(the compiler rewrites the check to 'true'), regardless of whether a
library providing its definition is weak-linked.
Remove the no-op checks to clean up the code and silence
-Wpointer-to-bool.
https
vsk added a comment.
Ah, sorry, I should have mentioned that the header vending
compression_decode_buffer() does not provide the 'weak_import' attribute (as
far as I can see!). If you change your example to drop 'weak_import' from foo,
I think it will be closer to the current situation.
https
vsk created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: javed.absar.
A few methods in RegisterContext classes accept const objects which are
cast to a non-const thread_state_t. Instead of dropping const-ness, it
might be simpler and more ergonomic to just not mark the objects const.
This fixes a sl
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40821#945314, @clayborg wrote:
> Seems wrong to remove the const on structs that don't need to change in order
> to make the write happen. Can't we just quiet the warnings with a const_cast
> inside the function call?
Absolutely. I opted for d
vsk updated this revision to Diff 125639.
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added a comment.
- Address Greg's comments.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40821
Files:
source/Plugins/Process/Utility/RegisterContextMach_arm.cpp
source/Plugins/Process/Utility/RegisterContextMach_i386.cpp
vsk updated this revision to Diff 125816.
vsk retitled this revision from "Disable warnings related to anonymous types"
to "Disable warnings related to anonymous types in the ObjC plugin".
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added a comment.
- Thanks @labath! I've disabled the GNU warnin
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks! The 6.0 compiler is ancient at this point. This lgtm.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41101
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
vsk requested changes to this revision.
vsk added a comment.
Why not take an approach similar to the one in https://reviews.llvm.org/D41008?
It looks like it's possible to set up a poll loop, call signal(), and verify
that the loop is still running.
Repository:
rLLD LLVM Linker
https://revi
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42206#979570, @jasonmolenda wrote:
> I tried sending signals to lldb-server via kill() and the signal handler
> caught them, the bit of code I had printing out the return value & errno
> value never got executed. The only way I was able to repo
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42206#979607, @clayborg wrote:
> Are we going to test each unix call that can fail with EINTR? Seems a bit
> overkill.
I think going forward, we should test all functional changes unless it really
is prohibitively expensive to do so. Useful ch
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: davide, aprantl, jasonmolenda.
Herald added a subscriber: mgorny.
On Darwin, if a test machine isn't set up for code-signing (see
docs/code-signing.txt), running check-lldb should use the system
debugserver instead of the unsigned one built in-tree.
vsk updated this revision to Diff 130325.
vsk added a comment.
Thanks for the feedback!
-Print out the path to the debug server as a status message
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42215
Files:
docs/code-signing.txt
test/CMakeLists.txt
Index: test/CMakeLists.txt
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: aprantl, davide, jasonmolenda, labath.
Herald added a subscriber: eraman.
Stale global module caches cause problems for the bots. The modules
become invalid when clang headers are updated by version control, and
tests which use these modules fail to
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/make/Makefile.rules:240
+CLANG_MODULE_CACHE_DIR := module-cache
+
aprantl wrote:
> Is it safe that this is a relative path?
I admit it's not great, but it's at least in keeping with the other
vsk updated this revision to Diff 130566.
vsk added a comment.
- Upload a diff with context.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42277
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lang/objc/modules-auto-import/Makefile
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lang/objc/modules-incomplete/Makefile
packages/Python/ll
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42280#982190, @jingham wrote:
> We have a lot of ugly boilerplate in the testsuite. I added:
>
> (target, process, thread, bkpt) = lldbutil.run_to_source_breakpoint(self,
> "Set a breakpoint here", self.main_source_
vsk updated this revision to Diff 130686.
vsk added a comment.
Per an offline comment by Adrian, include -gmodules in the mandatory set of
module flags.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42277
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lang/objc/modules-auto-import/Makefile
packages/Python/lldbsuite/t
vsk updated this revision to Diff 131000.
vsk added a comment.
- Skip tests which fail when -fmodules is passed
(https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36048).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42277
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-cpp/TestDataForm
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42277#985002, @aprantl wrote:
> > Skip tests which fail when -fmodules is passed
> > (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36048).
>
> Wait.. this patch is not supposed to change the set of tests that get
> -fmodules passed to them. It should o
vsk added a comment.
Is this OK to commit?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42277
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
vsk added a comment.
What's the failure mode? Have we had any issues with this on the bots?
Generally I'm all for removing flaky tests, I'd like to understand what makes
this flaky so we can avoid whatever it is in the future. In this case, we
should be able test this like we test clang code co
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This lgtm Jonas, thank you!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43024
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
vsk reopened this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Ah, I see the first part landed in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL324488 and this
is a follow-up.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43024
___
lldb-commits mailing
1 - 100 of 436 matches
Mail list logo
