date:20160219

Re: [lldb-dev] Details on rdar://18684408?

2016-02-19 Thread Pavel Labath via lldb-dev

Linux is ok as well. I've enabled the tests everywhere except windows.
Please add your arch back if you notice problems.

pl

On 18 February 2016 at 19:37, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
 wrote:
> Does not work on Windows yet, so please leave it xfail'ed on windows for now
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:30 AM Sean Callanan via lldb-dev
>  wrote:
>>
>> I apologize for this confusion.  I recently fixed these as a side effect
>> of some major changes in IRForTarget.cpp.
>> These should be fixed on pretty much all platforms, and the
>> expectedFailure can be removed.
>> If they’re passing on Linux too, let’s remove the expectedFailure.
>>
>> Sean
>>
>> > On Feb 18, 2016, at 11:22 AM, Ed Maste via lldb-dev
>> >  wrote:
>> >
>> > The tests in lang/cpp/unicode-literals/TestUnicodeLiterals.py are
>> > marked with @unittest2.expectedFailure("rdar://18684408").
>> >
>> > These tests are passing on FreeBSD:
>> > UNEXPECTED SUCCESS: test_and_run_command_dwarf
>> > (lang/c/const_variables/TestConstVariables.py)
>> > UNEXPECTED SUCCESS: test_expr1_dwarf
>> > (lang/cpp/unicode-literals/TestUnicodeLiterals.py)
>> > UNEXPECTED SUCCESS: test_expr2_dwarf
>> > (lang/cpp/unicode-literals/TestUnicodeLiterals.py)
>> > UNEXPECTED SUCCESS: test_expr3_dwarf
>> > (lang/cpp/unicode-literals/TestUnicodeLiterals.py)
>> >
>> > The example in the test case works as expected:
>> >
>> > (lldb) expr L"Hello"
>> > (const wchar_t [6]) $0 = L"Hello"
>> >
>> > Are these passing on Linux as well?
>> > ___
>> > 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 mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] problem with quoted strings in setting target.run-args

2016-02-19 Thread Pavel Labath via lldb-dev

Hi Ted,

I did some improvements in this area a year ago, which (I hope) made
things better, but they are still not perfect (hint: try running:
settings set target.run-args '"') [that's
]. I tried to finish the
job, but it ended up being too complicated, for the reasons you
mention above...

I think the current method of "quoting" in
OptionValueString::SetValueFromString is wrong and I would welcome
anything that changes that. Also, if you can decrease the number of
times we need to quote and unquote stuff while passing the arguments
internally around, I would be super happy. :)

(I'm not sure if this helps you. I don't really have a good suggestion
on how to do what you want, but I wanted to encourage the idea.)

pl

On 19 February 2016 at 00:16, Ted Woodward via lldb-dev
 wrote:
> Quoted strings in target.run-args aren’t handled correctly.
>
>
>
> (lldb) settings set target.run-args "foo bar"
>
> (lldb) settings show target.run-args
>
> target.run-args (array of strings) =
>
>   [0]: "foo bar"
>
>
>
> This looks correct, but the Args in the ProcessLaunchInfo passed to the
> Platform doesn’t have m_args_quote_char set, so if the Args is later pulled
> out with GetQuotedCommandString() it won’t get “foo bar”, but will instead
> get foo and bar unquoted. This is masked when talking to debugserver or
> lldb_server because run-args are sent to the server using an RSP packet, but
> on systems like Windows or the Hexagon Simulator, where run-args are on the
> command line, you get 2 args, foo and bar, instead of 1 arg “foo bar”.
>
>
>
> The first problem is in OptionValueArray::SetArgs(), in the
> eVarSetOperationAppend case. It calls Args::GetArgumentAtIndex(), which
> doesn’t return a quoted argument. I added a function
> GetQuotedArgumentAtIndex() and called that, which revealed the second
> problem. The string is passed into
> OptionValue::CreateValueFromCStringForTypeMask(), which calls
> OptionValueString::SetValueFromString(). In that function it explicitly
> strips quotes. Changing it to not strip quotes leads to the third problem –
> when TargetProperties::RunArgsValueChangedCallback() pulls the data from the
> OptionValueArray to make a new Args, it calls OptionValueArray::GetArgs(),
> which doesn’t handle quoting like the Args ctor does.
>
>
>
> I think changing the OptionValue classes to handle quoting could lead to
> problems with other use cases. So that leaves me with the option of going
> through the Args before launch and adding quotes around anything with
> spaces, which seems hackish. Any thoughts on how to solve this issue?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
>
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] [3.8 Release] Release status

2016-02-19 Thread Daniel Sanders via lldb-dev

Hi Hans,

I think PR26369 should be on the list but we could potentially make do without 
it (see below). Without it we get 23 failures on libcxx tests caused by failing 
to link the tests with libatomic but libcxx itself is fine.

One thing that's unclear is whether these failures are really regressions or 
not. My logs for 3.7.1 don't show any failures which would suggest they are 
regressions. However I've just run 'make check-libcxx' on that old build and I 
get the same failures I see on 3.8. I'm currently digging into the 3.7.1 build 
to see if I can explain why the log differs from what I currently get.

From: lldb-dev [lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] on behalf of Hans Wennborg via 
lldb-dev [lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org]
Sent: 19 February 2016 00:22
To: llvm-dev; cfe-dev; LLDB Dev; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); 
release-test...@lists.llvm.org; Cong Hou; Davide Italiano; Quentin Colombet; 
Hal Finkel; Chandler Carruth; JF Bastien; Nemanja Ivanovic; Matthias Braun
Subject: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org), we should
have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're officially
behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up pretty
soon, though.

This is what's blocking us:

- PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop()
  I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can revert
r255691 on the branch

- Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it

- PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
  There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
  But no comments yet.. Hal?

- PR26564: Performance regression in AA
  Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and
requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/

- ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
  It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.

- PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC
  Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294
  Looks like it's moving along.

- PR26081: Assertion failed: (BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && ...
  I believe Matthias is working on it?
  Will revert r252839 to unblock otherwise.

- PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin
  Is no one looking? :-(

If you're on one of these bugs or code reviews, etc., please try to
prioritize them if you can.

Also, please let me know if my list is missing something.

Cheers,
Hans
___
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] [3.8 Release] Release status

2016-02-19 Thread Renato Golin via lldb-dev

On 19 February 2016 at 00:22, Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev
 wrote:
> - PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
>   There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
>   But no comments yet.. Hal?

This looks like a serious bug but Hal's idea is still unproven. I
think we should land the patch as it is, since it disables the bad
behaviour, and think about a fix later. Depending on how complex the
fix is, we might not even merge it into 3.8.x later on, but we need
the fix in 3.8.0.

> - ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
>   It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.

No brainer. Accepted on trunk by compnerd, I'll merge into release_38 shortly.

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

Re: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

2016-02-19 Thread Daniel Sanders via lldb-dev

I've changed the lit arguments to '-v' on my old 3.7.1 build and re-run 
check-all. I can confirm that these failures aren't regressions since LLVM 
3.7.1 did not actually run any libc++ tests. Looking through the generated 
makefiles it seems that check-libcxx wasn't part of check-all.

From: Daniel Sanders
Sent: 19 February 2016 14:33
To: Hans Wennborg; llvm-dev; cfe-dev; LLDB Dev; openmp-dev 
(openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); release-test...@lists.llvm.org; Cong Hou; Davide 
Italiano; Quentin Colombet; Hal Finkel; Chandler Carruth; JF Bastien; Nemanja 
Ivanovic; Matthias Braun
Subject: RE: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

Hi Hans,

I think PR26369 should be on the list but we could potentially make do without 
it (see below). Without it we get 23 failures on libcxx tests caused by failing 
to link the tests with libatomic but libcxx itself is fine.

One thing that's unclear is whether these failures are really regressions or 
not. My logs for 3.7.1 don't show any failures which would suggest they are 
regressions. However I've just run 'make check-libcxx' on that old build and I 
get the same failures I see on 3.8. I'm currently digging into the 3.7.1 build 
to see if I can explain why the log differs from what I currently get.

From: lldb-dev [lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] on behalf of Hans Wennborg via 
lldb-dev [lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org]
Sent: 19 February 2016 00:22
To: llvm-dev; cfe-dev; LLDB Dev; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); 
release-test...@lists.llvm.org; Cong Hou; Davide Italiano; Quentin Colombet; 
Hal Finkel; Chandler Carruth; JF Bastien; Nemanja Ivanovic; Matthias Braun
Subject: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org), we should
have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're officially
behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up pretty
soon, though.

This is what's blocking us:

- PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop()
  I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can revert
r255691 on the branch

- Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it

- PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
  There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
  But no comments yet.. Hal?

- PR26564: Performance regression in AA
  Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and
requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/

- ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
  It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.

- PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC
  Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294
  Looks like it's moving along.

- PR26081: Assertion failed: (BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && ...
  I believe Matthias is working on it?
  Will revert r252839 to unblock otherwise.

- PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin
  Is no one looking? :-(

If you're on one of these bugs or code reviews, etc., please try to
prioritize them if you can.

Also, please let me know if my list is missing something.

Cheers,
Hans
___
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] [3.8 Release] Release status

2016-02-19 Thread Renato Golin via lldb-dev

On 19 February 2016 at 15:33, Renato Golin  wrote:
> On 19 February 2016 at 00:22, Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev
>  wrote:
>> - PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
>>   There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
>>   But no comments yet.. Hal?
>
> This looks like a serious bug but Hal's idea is still unproven. I
> think we should land the patch as it is, since it disables the bad
> behaviour, and think about a fix later. Depending on how complex the
> fix is, we might not even merge it into 3.8.x later on, but we need
> the fix in 3.8.0.

r261341.


>> - ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
>>   It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.
>
> No brainer. Accepted on trunk by compnerd, I'll merge into release_38 shortly.

r261343.

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

Re: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

2016-02-19 Thread Quentin Colombet via lldb-dev

Hi Hans,

Thanks for pushing this forward.

> On Feb 18, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Hans Wennborg  wrote:
> 
> According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org), we should
> have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're officially
> behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up pretty
> soon, though.
> 
> This is what's blocking us:
> 
> - PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop()
>  I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can revert
> r255691 on the branch
> 
> - Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it

http://reviews.llvm.org/D17427

> 
> - PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
>  There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
>  But no comments yet.. Hal?
> 
> - PR26564: Performance regression in AA
>  Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and
> requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/
> 
> - ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
>  It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.
> 
> - PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC
>  Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294
>  Looks like it's moving along.
> 
> - PR26081: Assertion failed: (BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && ...
>  I believe Matthias is working on it?
>  Will revert r252839 to unblock otherwise.
> 
> - PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin
>  Is no one looking? :-(

I’ll have a look.

Cheers,
-Quentin

> 
> If you're on one of these bugs or code reviews, etc., please try to
> prioritize them if you can.
> 
> Also, please let me know if my list is missing something.
> 
> Cheers,
> Hans

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

[lldb-dev] EuroLLVM 2016 program now online

2016-02-19 Thread Arnaud Allard de Grandmaison via lldb-dev

For your information, the EuroLLVM 2016 program committee has finished its
homework, and the program is now online at
http://www.llvm.org/devmtg/2016-03/

We hope you will enjoy it ;)

The detailed scheduled will be available in the next few days.

Kind regards,
--
Arnaud A. de Grandmaison
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

2016-02-19 Thread Quentin Colombet via lldb-dev

Hi Hans,

> On Feb 19, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Quentin Colombet via cfe-dev 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Hans,
> 
> Thanks for pushing this forward.
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Hans Wennborg > > wrote:
>> 
>> According to the schedule (e.g. on the right on llvm.org 
>> ), we should
>> have tagged the release by now, but we haven't, so we're officially
>> behind schedule. I'm still optimistic that we can wrap this up pretty
>> soon, though.
>> 
>> This is what's blocking us:
>> 
>> - PR26509: Crash in InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeLoop()
>> I'm waiting to hear what Cong comes up with, otherwise we can revert
>> r255691 on the branch
>> 
>> - Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it
> 
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D17427 
> 
>> 
>> - PR26600: Loop vectorization creates an unsafe out-of-bounds load
>> There's a patch out: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
>> But no comments yet.. Hal?
>> 
>> - PR26564: Performance regression in AA
>> Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and
>> requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/
>> 
>> - ARM: fix VFP asm constraints: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17349
>> It's not a regression, but I'll take it if it lands real soon.
>> 
>> - PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC
>> Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294
>> Looks like it's moving along.
>> 
>> - PR26081: Assertion failed: (BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && ...
>> I believe Matthias is working on it?
>> Will revert r252839 to unblock otherwise.
>> 
>> - PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin
>> Is no one looking? :-(

Should be fixed as revision 261384 on trunk.

I leave the merge to you.

Thanks,
-Quentin
> 
> I’ll have a look.
> 
> Cheers,
> -Quentin
> 
>> 
>> If you're on one of these bugs or code reviews, etc., please try to
>> prioritize them if you can.
>> 
>> Also, please let me know if my list is missing something.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Hans
> 
> ___
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-...@lists.llvm.org 
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev 
> 
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

2016-02-19 Thread Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev

Many thanks to everyone who helped out after this email yesterday!

Here's an update on the remaining issues. As you can see, it's a much
shorter list :-) I'm hoping to tag rc3 very soon.

Thanks again,
Hans

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Hans Wennborg  wrote:
> - Shrink-wrapping vs TLS: Davide and Quentin are working on it
Fix is in r261387, will merge once it's baked in the tree for a bit.

> - PR26564: Performance regression in AA
>   Patch in review, but it makes me a little uneasy since it's big and
> requires pulling in some refactoring patches too :-/
Keeping an eye on it, but it's not blocking.

> - PR26500: shrink-wrapping vs PPC
>   Patch in review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17294
Looks like it's pretty much ready to land.

> - PR26485: regression lowering TLS access in C on Darwin
Fix is in r261384, will merge after it's been in-tree for a while.

- r261297 - Implement the likely resolution of core issue 253.
  New from yesterday. Might want to merge this. Post-commit review
  is still ongoing.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

[lldb-dev] [Bug 26677] New: LLDB does not report Linux signal 35 (SIGRTMIN+1)

2016-02-19 Thread via lldb-dev

https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26677

Bug ID: 26677
   Summary: LLDB does not report Linux signal 35 (SIGRTMIN+1)
   Product: lldb
   Version: 3.8
  Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P
 Component: All Bugs
  Assignee: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
  Reporter: eugen...@hotmail.com
CC: llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org
Classification: Unclassified

-- 
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] Details on rdar://18684408?

Re: [lldb-dev] problem with quoted strings in setting target.run-args

Re: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

Re: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

Re: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

Re: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

Re: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

[lldb-dev] EuroLLVM 2016 program now online

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

Re: [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release status

[lldb-dev] [Bug 26677] New: LLDB does not report Linux signal 35 (SIGRTMIN+1)

11 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information