On 26/03/2019 23:16, Jonas Devlieghere via lldb-dev wrote:
Yesterday I stumbled upon the initialization code for the "Kalimba"
platform. It looks like this was added in 2014 and never had any tests.
If nobody is relying on this platform, I propose to remove it.
Review: https://reviews.llvm.org
Hi Jonas,
I agree you can remove Kalimba as a platform.
We'll manage bringing it back upstream should we re-engage with llvm/lldb for
Kalimba.
Some background:
As CSR (Cambridge Silicon Radio plc) we experimented with using lldb for the
Kalimba DSP.
CSR plc was acquired by Qualcomm in Augu
On 26/03/2019 14:48, David Zarzycki via lldb-dev wrote:
On Mar 26, 2019, at 3:07 AM, Jan Kratochvil
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 19:47:36 +0100, David Zarzycki via lldb-dev
wrote:
Also, given that two of the test failures are Intel specific (the
mxcsr register write failures), what class of ha
Sorry, was traveling and the internet wasn't good enough for git.
Thanks for pushing a fix Pavel!
- Raphael
Am Mi., 27. März 2019 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
:
>
> On 26/03/2019 14:48, David Zarzycki via lldb-dev wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 26, 2019, at 3:07 AM, Jan Kratochvil
> >>
Thanks for the background, David!
I've removed the platform in r357086.
Cheers,
Jonas
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 5:42 AM David Earlam
wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
>
> I agree you can remove Kalimba as a platform.
> We'll manage bringing it back upstream should we re-engage with llvm/lldb
> for Kalimba.
>
>
Hi,
I've just tagged 7.1.0-rc1. Testers, please begin testing and reporting
results.
Thanks,
Tom
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
If you have a library that has a version number of 0.0.0,
uint32_t SBModule::GetVersion(uint32_t *versions, uint32_t num_versions)
will return a result of 2 (which is the number of elements it put into
num_versions) and the two elements it actually stuffed into the versions array
will be {UIN
