[lldb-dev] Serial port support in LLDB

Hi, everyone. I'm working on improving LLDB's feature parity with GDB. As part of this, I'm working on bettering LLDB's serial port support. Since serial ports are not that common these days, I've been asked to explain a bit what I'd like to do. At this point, LLDB (client) has minimal support

[lldb-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

Hi, # Proposal The LLVM Foundation Board of Directors is seeking comment on the current state of Code Review within the LLVM Project and its sub-projects. Phabricator is no longer actively maintained and we would like to move away from a self-hosted solution, so our goal is to determine if

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [RFC] Building LLVM-Debuginfod

+lldb-dev On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 11:01 PM Petr Hosek via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Two major factors are compatibility with a broad range of platforms (our > toolchain is already being used by developers on Linux, macOS, Windows) and > permissive license (our goal is to provide

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 17:06, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > - Any other information that you think will help the Board of Directors > make the best decision. - Foundation Board will have 30 days to make a final decision about using > GitHub Pull Requests and then co

Re: [lldb-dev] Serial port support in LLDB

This looks pretty sensible. I spent a lot of time fighting serial ports on early PCs and Apple IIs back in the eighties, and you seem to be covering most of the usual problems. You should probably: Make hardware flow control compulsory, since software flow control will not be practical, and wit

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

On 10/5/21 9:47 AM, Renato Golin wrote: On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 17:06, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: - Any other information that you think will help the Board of Directors make the best decision. - Foundation Board will have 30 days to make a final d

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 18:09, Tom Stellard wrote: > In my opinion, this is not a technical issue. I find that surprising. But maybe it's just me. > The Board owns the infrastructure > for the project and is responsible for ensuring that it is well maintained > and > functional. From the blo

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

On 10/5/21 10:48 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:09 AM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: On 10/5/21 9:47 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 17:06, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

+1 to Renato's response here.  I had the same thought, and Renato phrased it much better than I'd have managed. Philip On 10/5/21 9:47 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 17:06, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: - Any other informati

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 19:16, Tom Stellard wrote: > However, it's not a good position for the Board to be responsible > for something that it doesn't have control over. If Google decided to > stop hosting > Phabricator for some reason (unlikely, but not impossible), the Board > would be > respons

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

Hello! The purpose of this email is to start a discussion about our code review tools. No decisions have been made about changing tools. The idea behind a timeline is so that information could be gathered in a timely manner. The Infrastructure Working Group was formed to bring together community