Hm, a follow-on problem is that there's some bug between debugserver and lldb with the g/G packets which is causing bot failures on macos systems. lldb has never used g/G before (if p/P was available) because debugserver seeds all of the GPR values with the stop packet (? aka Tnn) or with the jThreadsInfo packet when we have a public stop and want the GPRs for all the threads, so there was no driving perf need.
g/G would be a perf benefit if you were fetching the floating point registers on every step, which could definitely happen in an IDE, but it's not common, so we stuck with the simpler p/P. Given that TestRegisters.py and some filecheck tests are failing on macos the bots, I think it might be best to change the default value for plugin.process.gdb-remote.use-g-packet-for-reading to false until next week when we can get to the bottom of the debugserver g/G issue. I'm not sure of the configuration of the bots; I think some of them use the installed debugserver binaries (which are code signed by apple etc) instead of the just-built one. I'm not sure how we'll structure TestRegisters.py and the filecheck tests to handle the difference correctly. We can figure that out next week. J > On Nov 8, 2019, at 4:15 PM, Jason Molenda <jmole...@apple.com> wrote: > > A heads-up - lldb is failing to detect the case where the remote gdb RSP stub > does not support the 'g' packet. I found this while doing some bare board > debugging; g fails and doesn't fall back to fetching register values > individually. > > I wrote a test TestNoGPacketSupported.py to show this behavior - it's > currently marked as @expectedFailureAll. If I add the > plugin.process.gdb-remote.use-g-packet-for-reading = false setting, the test > case passes, but of course we can't require people to use that. lldb has to > be adaptive to the packets that the remote stub supports. > > > I'll try to look at the updating the changes to work correctly in this > environment, but I wanted to raise the issue more widely in case anyone has a > chance before me. > > > J > > >> On Oct 30, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Guilherme Andrade via Phabricator >> <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> guiandrade added a comment. >> >> In D62931#1726865 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62931#1726865>, @labath wrote: >> >>> This looks fine to me. Thanks for your patience. Do you still need someone >>> to commit this for you? >> >> >> Np. Yes, I do. Could you please do it for me? >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> Repository: >> rG LLVM Github Monorepo >> >> CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D62931/new/ >> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D62931 >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
