Is the line they stepped to - instead of the expected line - always line 0?
Jim
> On Nov 12, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> This breaks about 12 tests on Windows. The patch looks simple, but this
> isn't really my area, is there anything I can give you to help diagnose what
> might be wrong? The following tests fail:
>
> FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: Test-rdar-9974002.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200
> AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDataFormatterHexCaps.py (Windows zturner-win81 8
> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDataFormatterNamedSummaries.py (Windows
> zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7,
> GenuineIntel)
> FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDataFormatterPythonSynth.py (Windows zturner-win81
> 8 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDataFormatterSynth.py (Windows zturner-win81 8
> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDiamond.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200 AMD64
> Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestFormatPropagation.py (Windows zturner-win81 8
> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestFrames.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200 AMD64
> Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestInlineStepping.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200
> AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestSBData.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200 AMD64
> Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestStepNoDebug.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200
> AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestThreadJump.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200
> AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
>
> And here's the error I get from one of the failing tests, although I don't
> know how much insight it provides.
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\lldbtest.py",
> line 536, in wrapper
> return func(self, *args, **kwargs)
> File "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\lldbtest.py",
> line 2228, in dwarf_test_method
> return attrvalue(self)
> File "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\lldbtest.py",
> line 608, in wrapper
> func(*args, **kwargs)
> File
> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\functionalities\step-avoids-no-debug\TestStepNoDebug.py",
> line 41, in test_step_in_with_python
> self.do_step_in_past_nodebug()
> File
> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\functionalities\step-avoids-no-debug\TestStepNoDebug.py",
> line 105, in do_step_in_past_nodebug
> self.hit_correct_line ("intermediate_return_value =
> called_from_nodebug_actual(some_value)")
> File
> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\functionalities\step-avoids-no-debug\TestStepNoDebug.py",
> line 57, in hit_correct_line
> self.assertTrue (cur_line == target_line, "Stepped to line %d instead of
> expected %d with pattern '%s'."%(cur_line, target_line, pattern))
> AssertionError: False is not True : Stepped to line 0 instead of expected 19
> with pattern 'intermediate_return_value =
> called_from_nodebug_actual(some_value)'.
> Config=i686-d:\src\llvmbuild\ninja_release\bin\clang.exe
> Session info generated @ Thu Nov 12 15:44:43 2015
> To rerun this test, issue the following command from the 'test' directory:
>
> If it's not obvious what the problem is, can we revert this until we figure
> it out and then reland it?
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 2:34 PM Jim Ingham via lldb-commits
> <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: jingham
> Date: Thu Nov 12 16:32:09 2015
> New Revision: 252963
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=252963&view=rev
> Log:
> Another little stepping optimization: if any of the source step commands are
> running through a range
> of addresses, and the range has no branches, instead of running to the last
> instruction and
> single-stepping over that, run to the first instruction after the end of the
> range. If there
> are no branches in the current range, then the bytes right after it have to
> be in the current
> function, and have to be instructions not data in code, so this is safe. And
> it cuts down one
> extra stepi per source range step.
>
> Incidentally, this also works around a bug in the llvm Intel assembler where
> it treats the "rep"
> prefix as a separate instruction from the repeated instruction. If that were
> at the end of a
> line range, then we would put a trap in place of the repeated instruction,
> which is undefined
> behavior. Current processors just ignore the repetition in this case, which
> changes program behavior.
> Since there would never be a line range break after the rep prefix, always
> doing the range stepping
> to the beginning of the new range avoids this problem.
>
> <rdar://problem/23461686>
>
> Modified:
> lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp
>
> Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp
> URL:
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp?rev=252963&r1=252962&r2=252963&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp (original)
> +++ lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp Thu Nov 12 16:32:09 2015
> @@ -390,12 +390,19 @@ ThreadPlanStepRange::SetNextBranchBreakp
> if (branch_index == UINT32_MAX)
> {
> branch_index = instructions->GetSize() - 1;
> + InstructionSP last_inst =
> instructions->GetInstructionAtIndex(branch_index);
> + size_t last_inst_size = last_inst->GetOpcode().GetByteSize();
> + run_to_address = last_inst->GetAddress();
> + run_to_address.Slide(last_inst_size);
> + }
> + else if (branch_index - pc_index > 1)
> + {
> + run_to_address =
> instructions->GetInstructionAtIndex(branch_index)->GetAddress();
> }
>
> - if (branch_index - pc_index > 1)
> + if (run_to_address.IsValid())
> {
> const bool is_internal = true;
> - run_to_address =
> instructions->GetInstructionAtIndex(branch_index)->GetAddress();
> m_next_branch_bp_sp =
> GetTarget().CreateBreakpoint(run_to_address, is_internal, false);
> if (m_next_branch_bp_sp)
> {
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-commits mailing list
> lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
