Re: [lldb-dev] Leaks from static variables

Agreed that it’s a defect and should be addressed. It mostly a question of prioritization relative to other work, so knowing about a specific scenario where this is a pressing issue would be valuable. Kate Stone k8st...@apple.com  Xcode Low Level Tools > On Aug 1, 2

Re: [lldb-dev] Leaks from static variables

If you're linking against liblldb you can't rely on the os cleaning up because you could unload liblldb before shutting down the process. Also it's good practice to do explicit cleanup since its not always just a simple matter of releasing resources, sometimes actual shutdown code needs to be inte

Re: [lldb-dev] Leaks from static variables

Greg Clayton will almost certainly want to weigh in here when he returns next week. Generally speaking, we’ve had a long tail of issues that only show up during teardown that we’re avoiding. Leaking resources that will be reclaimed by the OS when the process terminates is a non-issue. If ther

[lldb-dev] Leaks from static variables

Hi lldb-dev, It looks like the debugger initializes static variables in llvm (see: SystemInitializerFull::Initialize()), but, AFAICT, it never cleans them up. Does this cause memory leaks? I'd assumed that it's necessary to call llvm_shutdown() somewhere to avoid this kind of leak. Is there a bu

Re: [lldb-dev] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote: > Dear testers, > > 3.9.0-rc1 was just tagged from the 3.9 branch at r277207. > > This took a little longer than I'd hoped, but I think the branch is in > a decent state now. > > There are still open merge requests and bugs, but I'd like to get

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged

Ouch :-( Well, if we ever do a 3.8.2, that should be included. +Tom in case he's maintaining a list. On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Michael Kuperstein wrote: > The crash dump looks like it's probably PR27071. > The bug was introduced in r261387 (which was merged into 3.8) and fixed in > r26446

Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 29 July 2016 at 23:57, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers > wrote: >> There are still open merge requests and bugs, but I'd like to get the >> real testing started to see where we're at. > > First wave of testing pass on ARM. Uploaded to t

Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [llvm-dev] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged

We're having some failures on AArch64, filed https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28797 and investigating. Diana On 1 August 2016 at 10:18, Michael Kuperstein via Release-testers wrote: > The crash dump looks like it's probably PR27071. > The bug was introduced in r261387 (which was merged into

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged

The crash dump looks like it's probably PR27071. The bug was introduced in r261387 (which was merged into 3.8) and fixed in r264465 (which apparently wasn't). On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Bernhard Rosenkränzer < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > On the OpenMandriva side, x86_64 passes a