Thanks for the heads up Paul. I've tried your change on linux, and I don't see any regressions, so it should be safe to land.
Regarding the test failures you were seeing: what is the system you were testing this on? If it is linux, could you send me the list of failures -- I'd be interested in getting them sorted out. regards, pavel On 28 February 2017 at 11:45, Tamas Berghammer via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > As far as I know the only dwarf v5 functionality currently implemented in > LLDB is the split dwarf support so I don't expect it to work with the new > dwarf v5 data but as long as clang emits dwarf v4 (or older) by default it > shouldn't cause any immediate problem with the test suite (we will still > have to teach LLDB to handle dwarf v5). > > For the future changes, when you start to emit the new dwarf v5 tag and > form values instead of the current GNU extension tag and form values for > split dwarf and for the related new data form-s we will have to teach LLDB > to understand them (currently we expect only the GNU versions) so a heads > up for that change would be appreciated. Other then this I expect no issue > regarding the addition of dwarf v5 support for LLDB. > > Tamas > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:25 AM Robinson, Paul via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> I'm planning to commit a patch (http://reviews.llvm.org/D30206) which >> will >> cause Clang/LLVM to emit correct unit headers if you ask for version 5. >> I've run the lldb tests and I *think* I pointed to my modified Clang >> correctly (cmake with -DLLDB_TEST_COMPILER=/my/clang) and AFAICT it does >> not introduce new problems. >> I saw 3 Failure and 12 Error with or without the patch. >> (One Expected Failure seems to have become an Unexpected Success. Haven't >> tried to decipher logs to figure out which one yet.) >> >> If anybody can predict a problem with my patch, please let me know by >> noon Pacific time (2000 GMT) tomorrow (28th). >> >> We're going to be doing more work implementing various bits of DWARF v5 >> in the coming months. If anybody thinks they can predict that there are >> particular bits that would be especially problematic for LLDB, it would >> be useful to know up front which bits those are. >> >> Thanks >> --paulr >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lldb-dev mailing list >> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
