Hi,
Thanks for the report. I've had my eye set on this for a while, but
unfortunately it hasn't gotten to the top of the list yet. The main
reasons i was slow to respond are:
- there is no test included.
- I am not entirely sure about the proposed solution. It looks a bit
hackish (the stop reason
Cced some people who work on Linux.
Not sure how this slipped through the cracks, but sometimes you can have
better results by just posting a patch to lldb-commits and ccing the right
person (check owners file to find out who the right person is)
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:18 PM Eugene Birukov via
No response. I filed a bug, hopefully somebody will pay attention.
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26322
From: mi...@microsoft.com
To: eugen...@hotmail.com; lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
Subject: RE: Problems with core load on Linux and proposed solution
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:37:45 +
Eugene, do you know if they have taken these changes? Have you heard from
anybody on lldb-dev?
mikem
From: Eugene Birukov [mailto:eugen...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 10:46 AM
To: LLDB
Subject: Problems with core load on Linux and proposed solution
Hi,
LLDB 3.8 has much bett
Hi,
LLDB 3.8 has much better support for core load on Linux than 3.7 - thanks a
lot! But there are still two problems.
1. The thread ID are lost and there is FIXME in the code2. If core dump is
obtained from live process (i.e. gdb attach, gcore, detach) then there is no
thread that has any reaso
