Re: [lldb-dev] Interest in enabling -Werror by default

2016-02-16 Thread Tamas Berghammer via lldb-dev 
I would be happy if we can keep lldb warning free but I don't think
enabling -Werror is a good idea for 2 reasons:
* We are using a lot of different compiler and keeping the codebase warning
free on all of them might not be feasible especially for the less used,
older gcc versions.
* Neither llvm nor clang have -Werror enabled so if we enable it then a
clang/llvm change can break our build with a warning when it is hard to
justify a revert and a fix might not be trivial.

In short term I would prefer to just create a policy saying everybody
should write warning free code for lldb (I think it already kind of exists)
and we as a community try to ensure it during code review and with fixing
the possible things what slip through. In the longer term I would be happy
to see -Werror turned on for llvm and clang first and then we can follow up
with lldb but making this change will require a lot of discussion and might
get some push back.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It seems that enabling -Werror by default is within reach for lldb now.
> There currently are three warnings that remain with gcc 5.1 on Linux, and
> the build is clean of warnings with clang.
>
> There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in
> asserts, and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU
> incompatibility.
>
> Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep the
> build clean going forward?
>
> --
> Saleem Abdulrasool
> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
> ___
> 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

Re: [lldb-dev] Interest in enabling -Werror by default

2016-02-16 Thread Alex Bradbury via lldb-dev 
On 16 February 2016 at 06:02, Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems that enabling -Werror by default is within reach for lldb now.
> There currently are three warnings that remain with gcc 5.1 on Linux, and
> the build is clean of warnings with clang.
>
> There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in asserts,
> and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU incompatibility.
>
> Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep the build
> clean going forward?

If a developer adds a new warning to Clang (or enhances an existing
one), and this breaks the LLDB build - whose responsibility is it to
fix it?

Alex
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] Interest in enabling -Werror by default

2016-02-16 Thread Benjamin Kramer via lldb-dev 
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Tamas Berghammer via lldb-dev
 wrote:
> I would be happy if we can keep lldb warning free but I don't think enabling
> -Werror is a good idea for 2 reasons:
> * We are using a lot of different compiler and keeping the codebase warning
> free on all of them might not be feasible especially for the less used,
> older gcc versions.
> * Neither llvm nor clang have -Werror enabled so if we enable it then a
> clang/llvm change can break our build with a warning when it is hard to
> justify a revert and a fix might not be trivial.
>
> In short term I would prefer to just create a policy saying everybody should
> write warning free code for lldb (I think it already kind of exists) and we
> as a community try to ensure it during code review and with fixing the
> possible things what slip through. In the longer term I would be happy to
> see -Werror turned on for llvm and clang first and then we can follow up
> with lldb but making this change will require a lot of discussion and might
> get some push back.

Enabling -Werror for LLVM and Clang by default for everyone is
generally not an option. LLVM gets built by many users with new
compilers, old compilers and broken compilers that we have never heard
about. Breaking their build just because the compiler decided to emit
a warning provides no value, only pain. I'm happy with forcing -Werror
on developers, but I don't know how to express that in the build
system.

> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev
>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems that enabling -Werror by default is within reach for lldb now.
>> There currently are three warnings that remain with gcc 5.1 on Linux, and
>> the build is clean of warnings with clang.
>>
>> There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in
>> asserts, and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU
>> incompatibility.
>>
>> Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep the
>> build clean going forward?
>>
>> --
>> Saleem Abdulrasool
>> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>> ___
>> 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

[lldb-dev] [Bug 26632] New: Breakpoint opcode triggering SIGBUS on Nexus 6

2016-02-16 Thread via lldb-dev 
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26632

Bug ID: 26632
   Summary: Breakpoint opcode triggering SIGBUS on Nexus 6
   Product: lldb
   Version: unspecified
  Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P
 Component: All Bugs
  Assignee: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
  Reporter: e...@codeplay.com
CC: llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org, tbergham...@google.com
Classification: Unclassified

Created attachment 15910
  --> https://llvm.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=15910&action=edit
Source and arm binaries

r260367(http://reviews.llvm.org/D16853) which changed the arm breakpoint
opcodes introduced a bug on Nexus 6 Armv7. 
Whenever a breakpoint is hit it triggers a SIGBUS, seen when compiling with
both thumb and 32 bit.

Reverting the commit removes this problem. Note, need to rebuild lldb-server.

Contrived example attached, building source file fact.c using NDK r10e with the
following command lines.

~/Google/arm32_android-toolchain/bin/arm-linux-androideabi-gcc-4.9 fact.c -O0
-marm -fPIE -pie -o fact_32bit.out
~/Google/arm32_android-toolchain/bin/arm-linux-androideabi-gcc-4.9 fact.c -O0
-mthumb -fPIE -pie -o fact_thumb.out


On device
./lldb-server g 127.0.0.1:1234 fact_thumb.out

On host
(lldb) target create ~/Desktop/Scratch/android/fact_thumb.out
Current executable set to '~/Desktop/Scratch/android/fact_thumb.out' (arm).
(lldb) gdb-remote localhost:1234
Process 5109 stopped
* thread #1: tid = 5109, 0xb6f6af88, name = 'fact_thumb.out', stop reason =
signal SIGSTOP
frame #0: 0xb6f6af88
->  0xb6f6af88: movr0, sp
0xb6f6af8c: blx0xb6f71304
0xb6f6af90: movpc, r0
0xb6f6af94: addlt  r11, r4, r0, lsl r5
(lldb) b main
Breakpoint 1: where = fact_thumb.out`main, address = 0xb6fb3370
(lldb) c
Process 5109 resuming
Process 5109 stopped
* thread #1: tid = 5109, 0xb6fb32a0 fact_thumb.out`_start, name =
'fact_thumb.out', stop reason = signal SIGBUS
frame #0: 0xb6fb32a0 fact_thumb.out`_start
fact_thumb.out`_start:
->  0xb6fb32a0 <+0>:  ldrr12, [pc, #0x5c]
0xb6fb32a4 <+4>:  push   {r11, lr}
0xb6fb32a8 <+8>:  ldrr2, [pc, #0x58]
0xb6fb32ac <+12>: addr11, sp, #4

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] Interest in enabling -Werror by default

2016-02-16 Thread Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev 
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer 
wrote:

> I would be happy if we can keep lldb warning free but I don't think
> enabling -Werror is a good idea for 2 reasons:
> * We are using a lot of different compiler and keeping the codebase
> warning free on all of them might not be feasible especially for the less
> used, older gcc versions.
> * Neither llvm nor clang have -Werror enabled so if we enable it then a
> clang/llvm change can break our build with a warning when it is hard to
> justify a revert and a fix might not be trivial.
>

Err, sorry.  I meant by default on the build bots (IIRC, some (many?) of
the build bots do build with -Werror for LLVM and clang).  Yes, a new
warning in clang could cause issues in LLDB, though the same thing exists
for the LLVM/clang dependency.  Since this would be on the build bots, it
should get resolved rather quickly.

In short term I would prefer to just create a policy saying everybody
> should write warning free code for lldb (I think it already kind of exists)
> and we as a community try to ensure it during code review and with fixing
> the possible things what slip through. In the longer term I would be happy
> to see -Werror turned on for llvm and clang first and then we can follow up
> with lldb but making this change will require a lot of discussion and might
> get some push back.
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems that enabling -Werror by default is within reach for lldb now.
>> There currently are three warnings that remain with gcc 5.1 on Linux, and
>> the build is clean of warnings with clang.
>>
>> There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in
>> asserts, and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU
>> incompatibility.
>>
>> Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep the
>> build clean going forward?
>>
>> --
>> Saleem Abdulrasool
>> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>> ___
>> lldb-dev mailing list
>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
>> 
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>
>

-- 
Saleem Abdulrasool
compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] Interest in enabling -Werror by default

2016-02-16 Thread Tamas Berghammer via lldb-dev 
If you want to enable it only on the bots then I think we can decide it on
a bot by bot bases. For me the main question is who will be responsible for
fixing a warning introduced by a change in llvm or clang causing a build
failure because of a warning (especially when the fix is non trivial)?

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:31 PM Saleem Abdulrasool 
wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer 
> wrote:
>
>> I would be happy if we can keep lldb warning free but I don't think
>> enabling -Werror is a good idea for 2 reasons:
>> * We are using a lot of different compiler and keeping the codebase
>> warning free on all of them might not be feasible especially for the less
>> used, older gcc versions.
>> * Neither llvm nor clang have -Werror enabled so if we enable it then a
>> clang/llvm change can break our build with a warning when it is hard to
>> justify a revert and a fix might not be trivial.
>>
>
> Err, sorry.  I meant by default on the build bots (IIRC, some (many?) of
> the build bots do build with -Werror for LLVM and clang).  Yes, a new
> warning in clang could cause issues in LLDB, though the same thing exists
> for the LLVM/clang dependency.  Since this would be on the build bots, it
> should get resolved rather quickly.
>
> In short term I would prefer to just create a policy saying everybody
>> should write warning free code for lldb (I think it already kind of exists)
>> and we as a community try to ensure it during code review and with fixing
>> the possible things what slip through. In the longer term I would be happy
>> to see -Werror turned on for llvm and clang first and then we can follow up
>> with lldb but making this change will require a lot of discussion and might
>> get some push back.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev <
>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> It seems that enabling -Werror by default is within reach for lldb now.
>>> There currently are three warnings that remain with gcc 5.1 on Linux, and
>>> the build is clean of warnings with clang.
>>>
>>> There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in
>>> asserts, and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU
>>> incompatibility.
>>>
>>> Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep the
>>> build clean going forward?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Saleem Abdulrasool
>>> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>>> ___
>>> lldb-dev mailing list
>>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Saleem Abdulrasool
> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] Interest in enabling -Werror by default

2016-02-16 Thread Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev 
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer 
wrote:

> If you want to enable it only on the bots then I think we can decide it on
> a bot by bot bases. For me the main question is who will be responsible for
> fixing a warning introduced by a change in llvm or clang causing a build
> failure because of a warning (especially when the fix is non trivial)?
>

I think that the same policy as LLVM/clang should apply here.  The person
making the change would be responsible for ensuring that nothing breaks as
a result of their change.  The same situation exists when working on
interfaces that effect clang: a fix for a warning introduced by a change in
LLVM may be non-trivial in clang.

Just to be clear, I'm merely suggesting this as an option.  If it is
deemed too burdensome by most of the common committers, we state so and
not do this.


> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:31 PM Saleem Abdulrasool  > wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer > > wrote:
>>
>>> I would be happy if we can keep lldb warning free but I don't think
>>> enabling -Werror is a good idea for 2 reasons:
>>> * We are using a lot of different compiler and keeping the codebase
>>> warning free on all of them might not be feasible especially for the less
>>> used, older gcc versions.
>>> * Neither llvm nor clang have -Werror enabled so if we enable it then a
>>> clang/llvm change can break our build with a warning when it is hard to
>>> justify a revert and a fix might not be trivial.
>>>
>>
>> Err, sorry.  I meant by default on the build bots (IIRC, some (many?) of
>> the build bots do build with -Werror for LLVM and clang).  Yes, a new
>> warning in clang could cause issues in LLDB, though the same thing exists
>> for the LLVM/clang dependency.  Since this would be on the build bots, it
>> should get resolved rather quickly.
>>
>> In short term I would prefer to just create a policy saying everybody
>>> should write warning free code for lldb (I think it already kind of exists)
>>> and we as a community try to ensure it during code review and with fixing
>>> the possible things what slip through. In the longer term I would be happy
>>> to see -Werror turned on for llvm and clang first and then we can follow up
>>> with lldb but making this change will require a lot of discussion and might
>>> get some push back.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev <
>>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 It seems that enabling -Werror by default is within reach for lldb
 now.  There currently are three warnings that remain with gcc 5.1 on Linux,
 and the build is clean of warnings with clang.

 There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in
 asserts, and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU
 incompatibility.

 Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep the
 build clean going forward?

 --
 Saleem Abdulrasool
 compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
 ___
 lldb-dev mailing list
 lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
 http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

>>>
>>
>> --
>> Saleem Abdulrasool
>> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>>
>

-- 
Saleem Abdulrasool
compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] Interest in enabling -Werror by default

2016-02-16 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev 
You're talking about doing it on a per-bot basis and not a global policy,
but just throwing in that on the MSVC side at least, we're not warning free
right now and it's not trivial tog et warning free without disabling some
warnings (which I don't want to do either)

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:31 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer 
> wrote:
>
>> If you want to enable it only on the bots then I think we can decide it
>> on a bot by bot bases. For me the main question is who will be responsible
>> for fixing a warning introduced by a change in llvm or clang causing a
>> build failure because of a warning (especially when the fix is non trivial)?
>>
>
> I think that the same policy as LLVM/clang should apply here.  The person
> making the change would be responsible for ensuring that nothing breaks as
> a result of their change.  The same situation exists when working on
> interfaces that effect clang: a fix for a warning introduced by a change in
> LLVM may be non-trivial in clang.
>
> Just to be clear, I'm merely suggesting this as an option.  If it is
> deemed too burdensome by most of the common committers, we state so and
> not do this.
>
>
>
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:31 PM Saleem Abdulrasool 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I would be happy if we can keep lldb warning free but I don't think
 enabling -Werror is a good idea for 2 reasons:
 * We are using a lot of different compiler and keeping the codebase
 warning free on all of them might not be feasible especially for the less
 used, older gcc versions.
 * Neither llvm nor clang have -Werror enabled so if we enable it then a
 clang/llvm change can break our build with a warning when it is hard to
 justify a revert and a fix might not be trivial.

>>>
>>> Err, sorry.  I meant by default on the build bots (IIRC, some (many?) of
>>> the build bots do build with -Werror for LLVM and clang).  Yes, a new
>>> warning in clang could cause issues in LLDB, though the same thing exists
>>> for the LLVM/clang dependency.  Since this would be on the build bots, it
>>> should get resolved rather quickly.
>>>
>>> In short term I would prefer to just create a policy saying everybody
 should write warning free code for lldb (I think it already kind of exists)
 and we as a community try to ensure it during code review and with fixing
 the possible things what slip through. In the longer term I would be happy
 to see -Werror turned on for llvm and clang first and then we can follow up
 with lldb but making this change will require a lot of discussion and might
 get some push back.

 On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev <
 lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It seems that enabling -Werror by default is within reach for lldb
> now.  There currently are three warnings that remain with gcc 5.1 on 
> Linux,
> and the build is clean of warnings with clang.
>
> There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in
> asserts, and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU
> incompatibility.
>
> Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep the
> build clean going forward?
>
> --
> Saleem Abdulrasool
> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
> ___
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>

>>>
>>> --
>>> Saleem Abdulrasool
>>> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Saleem Abdulrasool
> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
> ___
> 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] No breakpoints after update

2016-02-16 Thread Carlo Kok via lldb-dev 
After updating lldb to latest (from ~october) i'm not getting any hits 
anymore for any breakpoints.


I'm remote debugging from Windows to OSX, the Platform (MacOS), ABI 
(sysV) all seems fine. the language runtime doesn't load yet but from 
what I've seen during debugging it never actually gets a dyld breakpoint 
hit.


Log is here:

http://pastebin.com/raw/NyUUed0v

checked every line, didn't see anything obvious. Any hints at what I can 
try would be appreciated.


Thanks.

--
Carlo Kok
RemObjects Software
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] Interest in enabling -Werror by default

2016-02-16 Thread Kamil Rytarowski via lldb-dev 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

NetBSD builds with GCC 4.8.2 and it emits few warnings for LLDB.

Before enabling -Werror please first iterate over build logs and help
to squash them. For example it detects undefined behavior IIRC for a
Darwin code part.

On 16.02.2016 20:01, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev wrote:
> You're talking about doing it on a per-bot basis and not a global 
> policy, but just throwing in that on the MSVC side at least, we're
> not warning free right now and it's not trivial tog et warning free
> without disabling some warnings (which I don't want to do either)
> 
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:31 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev 
> mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer 
> mailto:tbergham...@google.com>> wrote:
> 
> If you want to enable it only on the bots then I think we can 
> decide it on a bot by bot bases. For me the main question is who 
> will be responsible for fixing a warning introduced by a change in
> llvm or clang causing a build failure because of a warning 
> (especially when the fix is non trivial)?
> 
> 
> I think that the same policy as LLVM/clang should apply here.  The 
> person making the change would be responsible for ensuring that 
> nothing breaks as a result of their change.  The same situation 
> exists when working on interfaces that effect clang: a fix for a 
> warning introduced by a change in LLVM may be non-trivial in
> clang.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm merely suggesting this as an option.  If it
> is deemed too burdensome by most of the common committers, we state
> so and not do this.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:31 PM Saleem Abdulrasool 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer 
>  wrote:
> 
> I would be happy if we can keep lldb warning free but I don't think
> enabling -Werror is a good idea for 2 reasons: * We are using a lot
> of different compiler and keeping the codebase warning free on all
> of them might not be feasible especially for the less used, older
> gcc versions. * Neither llvm nor clang have -Werror enabled so if
> we enable it then a clang/llvm change can break our build with a
> warning when it is hard to justify a revert and a fix might not be
> trivial.
> 
> 
> Err, sorry.  I meant by default on the build bots (IIRC, some
> (many?) of the build bots do build with -Werror for LLVM and
> clang).  Yes, a new warning in clang could cause issues in LLDB,
> though the same thing exists for the LLVM/clang dependency.  Since
> this would be on the build bots, it should get resolved rather
> quickly.
> 
> In short term I would prefer to just create a policy saying
> everybody should write warning free code for lldb (I think it
> already kind of exists) and we as a community try to ensure it
> during code review and with fixing the possible things what slip
> through. In the longer term I would be happy to see -Werror turned
> on for llvm and clang first and then we can follow up with lldb but
> making this change will require a lot of discussion and might get
> some push back.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It seems that enabling -Werror by default is within reach for lldb
> now.  There currently are three warnings that remain with gcc 5.1
> on Linux, and the build is clean of warnings with clang.
> 
> There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in
> asserts, and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU
> incompatibility.
> 
> Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep
> the build clean going forward?
> 
> -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org 
> ___ lldb-dev mailing
> list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org 
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
> 
> 
> 
> -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
> 
> 
> 
> -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org 
> ___ 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
> 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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[lldb-dev] [Bug 24461] Allow LLDB to support Python 3.5

2016-02-16 Thread via lldb-dev 
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24461

Zachary Turner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

[lldb-dev] [Bug 21767] Get a Windows build bot up and running

2016-02-16 Thread via lldb-dev 
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21767

Bug 21767 depends on bug 21766, which changed state.

Bug 21766 Summary: Get the test suite working on Windows
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21766

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] No breakpoints after update

2016-02-16 Thread Jason Molenda via lldb-dev 
If you can pause the remote process while debugging, I would start by seeing if 
lldb knows about any images being loaded:

(lldb) image list

I'd also try 'target list', 'platform status', and maybe 'log enable lldb dyld' 
from the start.

If lldb can't figure out where the binaries are loaded in memory, it'll never 
set breakpoints.


J


> On Feb 16, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Carlo Kok via lldb-dev 
>  wrote:
> 
> After updating lldb to latest (from ~october) i'm not getting any hits 
> anymore for any breakpoints.
> 
> I'm remote debugging from Windows to OSX, the Platform (MacOS), ABI (sysV) 
> all seems fine. the language runtime doesn't load yet but from what I've seen 
> during debugging it never actually gets a dyld breakpoint hit.
> 
> Log is here:
> 
> http://pastebin.com/raw/NyUUed0v
> 
> checked every line, didn't see anything obvious. Any hints at what I can try 
> would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Carlo Kok
> RemObjects Software
> ___
> 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

Re: [lldb-dev] Interest in enabling -Werror by default

2016-02-16 Thread Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev 
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Zachary Turner  wrote:

> You're talking about doing it on a per-bot basis and not a global policy,
> but just throwing in that on the MSVC side at least, we're not warning free
> right now and it's not trivial tog et warning free without disabling some
> warnings (which I don't want to do either)
>

Correct, it would be enabling it on a per-bot basis.  We could do it such
that we only enable it on bots that run a certain GCC version or newer.  If
at some point we become warning free on MSVC, and decide that we want to
enable it on the bots so that people not building with MSVC normally know
that they have introduced a warning, we could do so at that time under MSVC.

Im just wondering if there is any interest in this at all.  If there is, we
can do this as logistically possible.  It doesn't have to be all or nothing.


> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:31 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If you want to enable it only on the bots then I think we can decide it
>>> on a bot by bot bases. For me the main question is who will be responsible
>>> for fixing a warning introduced by a change in llvm or clang causing a
>>> build failure because of a warning (especially when the fix is non trivial)?
>>>
>>
>> I think that the same policy as LLVM/clang should apply here.  The person
>> making the change would be responsible for ensuring that nothing breaks as
>> a result of their change.  The same situation exists when working on
>> interfaces that effect clang: a fix for a warning introduced by a change in
>> LLVM may be non-trivial in clang.
>>
>> Just to be clear, I'm merely suggesting this as an option.  If it is
>> deemed too burdensome by most of the common committers, we state so and
>> not do this.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:31 PM Saleem Abdulrasool <
>>> compn...@compnerd.org> wrote:
>>>
 On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer 
 wrote:

> I would be happy if we can keep lldb warning free but I don't think
> enabling -Werror is a good idea for 2 reasons:
> * We are using a lot of different compiler and keeping the codebase
> warning free on all of them might not be feasible especially for the less
> used, older gcc versions.
> * Neither llvm nor clang have -Werror enabled so if we enable it then
> a clang/llvm change can break our build with a warning when it is hard to
> justify a revert and a fix might not be trivial.
>

 Err, sorry.  I meant by default on the build bots (IIRC, some
 (many?) of the build bots do build with -Werror for LLVM and clang).  Yes,
 a new warning in clang could cause issues in LLDB, though the same thing
 exists for the LLVM/clang dependency.  Since this would be on the build
 bots, it should get resolved rather quickly.

 In short term I would prefer to just create a policy saying everybody
> should write warning free code for lldb (I think it already kind of 
> exists)
> and we as a community try to ensure it during code review and with fixing
> the possible things what slip through. In the longer term I would be happy
> to see -Werror turned on for llvm and clang first and then we can follow 
> up
> with lldb but making this change will require a lot of discussion and 
> might
> get some push back.
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems that enabling -Werror by default is within reach for lldb
>> now.  There currently are three warnings that remain with gcc 5.1 on 
>> Linux,
>> and the build is clean of warnings with clang.
>>
>> There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in
>> asserts, and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU
>> incompatibility.
>>
>> Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep the
>> build clean going forward?
>>
>> --
>> Saleem Abdulrasool
>> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>> ___
>> lldb-dev mailing list
>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>
>

 --
 Saleem Abdulrasool
 compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org

>>>
>>
>> --
>> Saleem Abdulrasool
>> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>> ___
>> lldb-dev mailing list
>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>
>


-- 
Saleem Abdulrasool
compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] Interest in enabling -Werror by default

2016-02-16 Thread Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev 
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Kamil Rytarowski  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> NetBSD builds with GCC 4.8.2 and it emits few warnings for LLDB.
>
> Before enabling -Werror please first iterate over build logs and help
> to squash them. For example it detects undefined behavior IIRC for a
> Darwin code part.


Interesting.  On Linux, lldb had many warnings, and over time, I've managed
to get mots of them cleaned up.  Right now, there are a couple of
-Wtype-limits warnings and one -Wformat warning.  Is there a build bot that
can be used to monitor what those warnings are?  If there aren't any
buildbots, then this would be of no consequence since we wouldn't turn it
on for user builds.

I wish I had caught what I wrote versus what I was thinking before hitting
send :-(.


>
> On 16.02.2016 20:01, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev wrote:
> > You're talking about doing it on a per-bot basis and not a global
> > policy, but just throwing in that on the MSVC side at least, we're
> > not warning free right now and it's not trivial tog et warning free
> > without disabling some warnings (which I don't want to do either)
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:31 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev
> > mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer
> > mailto:tbergham...@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> > If you want to enable it only on the bots then I think we can
> > decide it on a bot by bot bases. For me the main question is who
> > will be responsible for fixing a warning introduced by a change in
> > llvm or clang causing a build failure because of a warning
> > (especially when the fix is non trivial)?
> >
> >
> > I think that the same policy as LLVM/clang should apply here.  The
> > person making the change would be responsible for ensuring that
> > nothing breaks as a result of their change.  The same situation
> > exists when working on interfaces that effect clang: a fix for a
> > warning introduced by a change in LLVM may be non-trivial in
> > clang.
> >
> > Just to be clear, I'm merely suggesting this as an option.  If it
> > is deemed too burdensome by most of the common committers, we state
> > so and not do this.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:31 PM Saleem Abdulrasool
> >  wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer
> >  wrote:
> >
> > I would be happy if we can keep lldb warning free but I don't think
> > enabling -Werror is a good idea for 2 reasons: * We are using a lot
> > of different compiler and keeping the codebase warning free on all
> > of them might not be feasible especially for the less used, older
> > gcc versions. * Neither llvm nor clang have -Werror enabled so if
> > we enable it then a clang/llvm change can break our build with a
> > warning when it is hard to justify a revert and a fix might not be
> > trivial.
> >
> >
> > Err, sorry.  I meant by default on the build bots (IIRC, some
> > (many?) of the build bots do build with -Werror for LLVM and
> > clang).  Yes, a new warning in clang could cause issues in LLDB,
> > though the same thing exists for the LLVM/clang dependency.  Since
> > this would be on the build bots, it should get resolved rather
> > quickly.
> >
> > In short term I would prefer to just create a policy saying
> > everybody should write warning free code for lldb (I think it
> > already kind of exists) and we as a community try to ensure it
> > during code review and with fixing the possible things what slip
> > through. In the longer term I would be happy to see -Werror turned
> > on for llvm and clang first and then we can follow up with lldb but
> > making this change will require a lot of discussion and might get
> > some push back.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev
> >  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It seems that enabling -Werror by default is within reach for lldb
> > now.  There currently are three warnings that remain with gcc 5.1
> > on Linux, and the build is clean of warnings with clang.
> >
> > There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in
> > asserts, and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU
> > incompatibility.
> >
> > Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep
> > the build clean going forward?
> >
> > -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
> > ___ lldb-dev mailing
> > list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
> > ___ 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
>