Huh, I'll go check out that test. The basic functionality works on OS X:
(lldb) b s -n main
Breakpoint 1: 21 locations.
(lldb) run
Process 58218 launched: 'Sketch' (x86_64)
Process 58218 stopped
* thread #1: tid = 0xba0159, function: main , stop reason = breakpoint 1.1
frame #0: 0x0000000100018dc7 Sketch`main at SKTMain.m:17
14 }
15
16 int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) {
-> 17 NSLog (@"Added for testing rebuilds.");
18 bool got_a_bool = NO;
19 NSString *text_to_use = @"٢٠ شباط";
20
(lldb) dis -p
Sketch`main:
-> 0x100018dc7 <+55>: movq %rax, %rdi
0x100018dca <+58>: movb $0x0, %al
0x100018dcc <+60>: callq 0x10001d21a ; symbol stub for: NSLog
0x100018dd1 <+65>: leaq 0xa530(%rip), %rcx ;
@Sketch.__TEXT.__ustring + 0
(lldb) b s -a 0x100018dca
Breakpoint 2: where = Sketch`main + 58 at SKTMain.m:17, address =
0x0000000100018dca
(lldb) c
Process 58218 resuming
Process 58218 stopped
* thread #1: tid = 0xba0159, function: main , stop reason = breakpoint 2.1
frame #0: 0x0000000100018dca Sketch`main at SKTMain.m:17
14 }
15
16 int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) {
-> 17 NSLog (@"Added for testing rebuilds.");
18 bool got_a_bool = NO;
19 NSString *text_to_use = @"٢٠ شباط";
20
Jim
> On Nov 13, 2015, at 2:47 AM, Tamas Berghammer <tbergham...@google.com> wrote:
>
> 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
