We already have a test for it in TestConsecutiveBreakpoints.py what is xfail-ed on all platform because of this bug (http://llvm.org/pr23478). As far as I see from the build bots the test is also failing on OSX, but it might fail from a different reason then on Linux/Windows.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:10 AM Zachary Turner via lldb-commits < lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Thanks! Do you think you could add a test that does specifically that? > Set two breakpoints back to back, even in the same function, ane ensure > that the second one gets hit. If your theory is right this test will fail > on Windows and Linux (and then we'll have to xfail it) but at least we'll > have a test that's isolated to the root of the problem. > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:47 PM Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote: > >> Okay, I think I fixed this, the fix is: r253008. That passes cleanly on >> Linux for me, but I don't have a windows machine handy to test. >> >> What was happening is that originally lldb had a bug where if you were >> stopped on a breakpoint and then the next instruction also had a >> breakpoint, the plan that was stepping over the breakpoint would see a stop >> reason of "trace" so it would think it knew why it stopped and would >> auto-continue, since that's what you do when you are doing "step over a >> breakpoint and keep going." >> >> I fixed this by having the lower layers of the process plugin correct the >> stop reason from trace to breakpoint when a trace ended up on another >> breakpoint, but apparently Linux and Windows don't have this fix. That was >> done a while ago, so maybe they weren't around then, I have to think about >> that... >> >> Anyway, the old code in ThreadPlanStepRange had a short-cut that if we >> only needed to go one instruction, it wouldn't do it with a breakpoint, but >> just stepi. I didn't preserve that in the change I made, so we got into >> trouble. So for now I just put that short-cut back. >> >> I wondered how this managed to cause so many Linux failures, but the OS X >> testsuite was clean... >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> > On Nov 12, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: >> > >> > Ahh, seems it wasn't just Windows that was affected by this. Makes me >> feel a little better :) >> > >> > Posting the link to the buildbot failures here so that Jim can get full >> logs if it helps. >> > >> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake/builds/8391 >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:37 PM Ying Chen <chy...@google.com> wrote: >> > I reverted this patch for now. >> > Please resubmit if you have a fix. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Ying >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Jim Ingham via lldb-commits < >> lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > If you can debug a failing case, and do whatever step operation got you >> to the wrong place, then run up to that step, and do: >> > >> > (lldb) log enable -f <SOMEFILE> lldb step >> > >> > and then do the step, then send me that log plus the disassembly for >> the function you were stepping in and the output of: >> > >> > (lldb) image dump line-table <SourceFile> >> > >> > for the source file you were stepping in. >> > >> > I should be able to see from there why we were stepping to the wrong >> place. >> > >> > Jim >> > >> > > On Nov 12, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > The error messages are always different because the error message is >> printed by the test. I'm going to try to load up the executable for >> TestStepNoDebug in the debugger and get a disassembly and do the step >> > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:01 PM Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote: >> > > 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 >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > 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
