Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB Evolution: Next Phase

[Ed Maste via lldb-dev]

On 3 September 2016 at 00:30, Kate Stone via lldb-dev
 wrote:
> As a reminder, any pending commits you might have planned for LLDB this
> weekend must not break any of the bots we’re using to validate the health of
> the source tree.

Given the current non-functional state of the bots, what is the plan
for proceeding with the formatting change? For FreeBSD the bot was
building lldb but not running the tests and I was planning to manually
validate the tests.

For reference at r280675 on my FreeBSD desktop there are a few tests
that report errors (the libstdcpp ones, as FreeBSD 10 and later use
libc++), two that abort with an assertion ("Breakpoint update
failed!"), and three that sometimes time out (test_asm_int_3,
test_iter_registers_dwarf, test_with_dsym_and_python_api_dwarf).
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB Evolution: Next Phase

[Pavel Labath via lldb-dev]

Hi Ed,

which bots are you referring to? Our bots were red overnight, but
we've been cleaning them up now, and they should get green shortly. As
far as we're concerned, the reformat can go on as planned.

pl

On 6 September 2016 at 13:06, Ed Maste via lldb-dev
 wrote:
> On 3 September 2016 at 00:30, Kate Stone via lldb-dev
>  wrote:
>> As a reminder, any pending commits you might have planned for LLDB this
>> weekend must not break any of the bots we’re using to validate the health of
>> the source tree.
>
> Given the current non-functional state of the bots, what is the plan
> for proceeding with the formatting change? For FreeBSD the bot was
> building lldb but not running the tests and I was planning to manually
> validate the tests.
>
> For reference at r280675 on my FreeBSD desktop there are a few tests
> that report errors (the libstdcpp ones, as FreeBSD 10 and later use
> libc++), two that abort with an assertion ("Breakpoint update
> failed!"), and three that sometimes time out (test_asm_int_3,
> test_iter_registers_dwarf, test_with_dsym_and_python_api_dwarf).
> ___
> 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] LLDB Evolution: Next Phase

[Ed Maste via lldb-dev]

On 6 September 2016 at 08:51, Pavel Labath  wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> which bots are you referring to? Our bots were red overnight, but
> we've been cleaning them up now, and they should get green shortly. As
> far as we're concerned, the reformat can go on as planned.

The "Buildbot General Failure - Production Stop?" thread on llvm-dev
is what concerned me --
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104564.html

Quoting from there,
> Essentially, the bots were all lying when they said this or that
> commit "passed", since they were still testing the same old commit.
> All our bots were affected, and it seems many other Windows, PowerPC,
> s390, Atom, etc.

I'm not certain which bots are affected but the thread makes it sound
like there's a significant problem in the zorg infrastructure
affecting many bots. Perhaps all lldb bots of interest are not
affected though?

From my perspective on FreeBSD I'm fine with the reformat proceeding,
as my plan was always to manually validate the test run.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB Evolution: Next Phase

[Pavel Labath via lldb-dev]

Wow, I had no idea things were that bad. LLDB buildbots do not seem to
be affected though, so I think we should proceed.

pl



On 6 September 2016 at 14:09, Ed Maste  wrote:
> On 6 September 2016 at 08:51, Pavel Labath  wrote:
>> Hi Ed,
>>
>> which bots are you referring to? Our bots were red overnight, but
>> we've been cleaning them up now, and they should get green shortly. As
>> far as we're concerned, the reformat can go on as planned.
>
> The "Buildbot General Failure - Production Stop?" thread on llvm-dev
> is what concerned me --
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104564.html
>
> Quoting from there,
>> Essentially, the bots were all lying when they said this or that
>> commit "passed", since they were still testing the same old commit.
>> All our bots were affected, and it seems many other Windows, PowerPC,
>> s390, Atom, etc.
>
> I'm not certain which bots are affected but the thread makes it sound
> like there's a significant problem in the zorg infrastructure
> affecting many bots. Perhaps all lldb bots of interest are not
> affected though?
>
> From my perspective on FreeBSD I'm fine with the reformat proceeding,
> as my plan was always to manually validate the test run.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB Evolution: Next Phase

[Zachary Turner via lldb-dev]

Yea it's only clang bots i think
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:30 AM Pavel Labath via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Wow, I had no idea things were that bad. LLDB buildbots do not seem to
> be affected though, so I think we should proceed.
>
> pl
>
>
>
> On 6 September 2016 at 14:09, Ed Maste  wrote:
> > On 6 September 2016 at 08:51, Pavel Labath  wrote:
> >> Hi Ed,
> >>
> >> which bots are you referring to? Our bots were red overnight, but
> >> we've been cleaning them up now, and they should get green shortly. As
> >> far as we're concerned, the reformat can go on as planned.
> >
> > The "Buildbot General Failure - Production Stop?" thread on llvm-dev
> > is what concerned me --
> > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104564.html
> >
> > Quoting from there,
> >> Essentially, the bots were all lying when they said this or that
> >> commit "passed", since they were still testing the same old commit.
> >> All our bots were affected, and it seems many other Windows, PowerPC,
> >> s390, Atom, etc.
> >
> > I'm not certain which bots are affected but the thread makes it sound
> > like there's a significant problem in the zorg infrastructure
> > affecting many bots. Perhaps all lldb bots of interest are not
> > affected though?
> >
> > From my perspective on FreeBSD I'm fine with the reformat proceeding,
> > as my plan was always to manually validate the test run.
> ___
> 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] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] 'final' has been tagged

[Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev]

Thanks! I've added the binaries to the web site now.

Cheers,
Hans

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Vasileios Kalintiris
 wrote:
> I uploaded the binaries for MIPS, MIPSEL and the X86_64 debian8 build:
>
> 0e76e4cb45aaa0ee06076da43bbb27f6624abf14  
> clang+llvm-3.9.0-mipsel-linux-gnu.tar.xz
> 5a78496161aece73ccfc2b05edaf68bec4da9417  
> clang+llvm-3.9.0-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz
> 56f4334f2d59613b2599fbba9017fa0609fbdf06  
> clang+llvm-3.9.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-debian8.tar.xz
>
> Everything looks good but I can't run LNT for MIPSEL because of a network 
> problem. I'll run it tomorrow and I'll report back *if* there's any 
> unexpected problem.
>
> - V. Kalintiris
> 
> From: Release-testers [release-testers-boun...@lists.llvm.org] on behalf of 
> Hans Wennborg via Release-testers [release-test...@lists.llvm.org]
> Sent: 01 September 2016 00:49
> To: Release-testers
> Cc: llvm-dev; cfe-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); LLDB Dev
> Subject: [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] 'final' has been tagged
>
> Dear testers,
>
> The final version of 3.9.0 was just tagged (from the 3.9 branch at
> r280312). There were no changes after rc3. This took a little longer
> than expected, but on the up side that means it's had more time to be
> tested.
>
> Please build the final binaries and upload to the sftp.
>
> For others following along: this means 3.9.0 is complete, but it will
> take a few days to get the tarballs ready and uploaded to the web
> page. I will send the release announcement once everything's done.
>
> Many thanks for your hard work!
> Hans
> ___
> Release-testers mailing list
> release-test...@lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/release-testers
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

[lldb-dev] [Bug 30295] New: test infra: consider storing and re-using test inferior build artifacts for a given test directory

[via lldb-dev]

https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30295

Bug ID: 30295
   Summary: test infra: consider storing and re-using test
inferior build artifacts for a given test directory
   Product: lldb
   Version: unspecified
  Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P
 Component: All Bugs
  Assignee: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
  Reporter: todd.fi...@gmail.com
CC: llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org
Classification: Unclassified

As brought up in llvm.org/pr30271
(https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30271):

Pavel had the idea of re-using build artifacts across test methods and test
files in a given test directory.  This likely would increase the speed with
which we could run the test suite as it eliminates the need to rebuild test
inferiors for any test that includes more than one test method.

My further comments from pr30271:

8<

> We could achieve a big speedup by just not re-building the binaries over and 
> over again.

I could see that being a really big win.

We'd have to parameterize the memoization of the built artifacts by anything
that could change.  These would include:
* make command line
* environment variables

I think that already covers the compilers, as they would be specified by CC/CXX
env vars or command line parameters to make.

We'd need a concept of the build artifacts for a given set of build settings.

We could conceivably allow these to be stored in a specified directory, which
could allow builders to preserve them across clean builds of the lldb product
if we so desired.  (We might not want that, so that a clean build is really a
clean build of the test artifacts as well).  We could figure out that later.

I think this is a very worthwhile item to investigate.

I don't know if/how this impacts what we would do if we used lit to run our
tests.  (As I mentioned on a different thread, I have not yet put any effort
into looking at what our test suite would look like running existing tests in
that test runner.  We currently have a number of assumptions about how our
build process interacts with test method runs that may or may not fit into the
lit expectations as they currently stand.  Zach mentioned we could write some
kind of test runner that plugs into lit, which maybe can handle these details. 
In that case, the effort for your suggestion could be easily lifted and used in
both scenarios, and therefore wouldn't be a waste of effort if we switched test
runners).

8<

-- 
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] LLDB Evolution: Next Phase

[Kate Stone via lldb-dev]

This has been in the works long enough to get plans together.  If the current 
state of a bot suggests that manual validation is required then that’s what I’d 
recommend.  That’s the unfortunate current state of affairs with the Green 
Dragon bots, for example.

Kate Stone k8st...@apple.com 
 Xcode Low Level Tools

> On Sep 6, 2016, at 5:06 AM, Ed Maste  wrote:
> 
> On 3 September 2016 at 00:30, Kate Stone via lldb-dev
>  wrote:
>> As a reminder, any pending commits you might have planned for LLDB this
>> weekend must not break any of the bots we’re using to validate the health of
>> the source tree.
> 
> Given the current non-functional state of the bots, what is the plan
> for proceeding with the formatting change? For FreeBSD the bot was
> building lldb but not running the tests and I was planning to manually
> validate the tests.
> 
> For reference at r280675 on my FreeBSD desktop there are a few tests
> that report errors (the libstdcpp ones, as FreeBSD 10 and later use
> libc++), two that abort with an assertion ("Breakpoint update
> failed!"), and three that sometimes time out (test_asm_int_3,
> test_iter_registers_dwarf, test_with_dsym_and_python_api_dwarf).

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

[lldb-dev] LLDB REFORMATTING IN PROGRESS

[Kate Stone via lldb-dev]

As has been discussed over the past few weeks the reformatting of the LLDB code 
base will take place shortly, followed by validation before committing these 
changes.  Please suspend all commit activity.  Any intervening commits will be 
reverted until the all-clear is given.

Kate Stone k8st...@apple.com 
 Xcode Low Level Tools

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

[lldb-dev] [Bug 30299] TestDarwinLogFilterRegexMessage tests sometimes fail

[via lldb-dev]

https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30299

Todd Fiala  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org |todd.fi...@gmail.com

-- 
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 30299] New: TestDarwinLogFilterRegexMessage tests sometimes fail

[via lldb-dev]

https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30299

Bug ID: 30299
   Summary: TestDarwinLogFilterRegexMessage tests sometimes fail
   Product: lldb
   Version: unspecified
  Hardware: PC
OS: MacOS X
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P
 Component: All Bugs
  Assignee: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
  Reporter: todd.fi...@gmail.com
CC: llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org
Classification: Unclassified

One of my darwin log test files (testing regex matching on full log message
content) is flaky.  It's not just one test method; rather, it is several.

Mark them XFAIL, then investigate the issue.

-- 
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] LLDB REFORMATTING IN PROGRESS

[Kate Stone via lldb-dev]

The storm of commit messages might be a subtle clue, but here it is officially: 
the reformatting is complete and I’ve verified that no tests regressed locally 
in our macOS suite.  Please begin any validation process you’ve signed up for 
on another platform, and if changes are necessary go ahead and land them 
individually.

From the commit message:

*** This commit represents a complete reformatting of the LLDB source code
*** to conform to clang-format’s LLVM style.  This kind of mass change has
*** two obvious implications:

Firstly, merging this particular commit into a downstream fork may be a huge
effort.  Alternatively, it may be worth merging all changes up to this commit,
performing the same reformatting operation locally, and then discarding the
merge for this particular commit.  The commands used to accomplish this
reformatting were as follows (with current working directory as the root of
the repository):

find . \( -iname "*.c" -or -iname "*.cpp" -or -iname "*.h" -or -iname 
"*.mm" \) -exec clang-format -i {} +
find . -iname "*.py" -exec autopep8 --in-place --aggressive --aggressive {} 
+ ;

The version of clang-format used was 3.9.0, and autopep8 was 1.2.4.

Secondly, “blame” style tools will generally point to this commit instead of
a meaningful prior commit.  There are alternatives available that will attempt
to look through this change and find the appropriate prior commit.  YMMV.

Thanks for your collective support and assistance in preparing for this change.

Kate Stone k8st...@apple.com 
 Xcode Low Level Tools

> On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Kate Stone  wrote:
> 
> As has been discussed over the past few weeks the reformatting of the LLDB 
> code base will take place shortly, followed by validation before committing 
> these changes.  Please suspend all commit activity.  Any intervening commits 
> will be reverted until the all-clear is given.
> 
> Kate Stone k8st...@apple.com 
>  Xcode Low Level Tools
> 

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

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB REFORMATTING IN PROGRESS

[Zachary Turner via lldb-dev]

I think it goes without saying, but henceforth, no changes should be landed
without first passing them through clang-format.  Personally, I will be
reverting any I see that don't conform.  But I can't promise to catch all
of them.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:17 PM Kate Stone via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> The storm of commit messages might be a subtle clue, but here it is
> officially: the reformatting is complete and I’ve verified that no tests
> regressed locally in our macOS suite.  Please begin any validation process
> you’ve signed up for on another platform, and if changes are necessary go
> ahead and land them individually.
>
> From the commit message:
>
> *** This commit represents a complete reformatting of the LLDB source code
> *** to conform to clang-format’s LLVM style.  This kind of mass change has
> *** two obvious implications:
>
> Firstly, merging this particular commit into a downstream fork may be a
> huge
> effort.  Alternatively, it may be worth merging all changes up to this
> commit,
> performing the same reformatting operation locally, and then discarding the
> merge for this particular commit.  The commands used to accomplish this
> reformatting were as follows (with current working directory as the root of
> the repository):
>
> find . \( -iname "*.c" -or -iname "*.cpp" -or -iname "*.h" -or -iname
> "*.mm" \) -exec clang-format -i {} +
> find . -iname "*.py" -exec autopep8 --in-place --aggressive
> --aggressive {} + ;
>
> The version of clang-format used was 3.9.0, and autopep8 was 1.2.4.
>
> Secondly, “blame” style tools will generally point to this commit instead
> of
> a meaningful prior commit.  There are alternatives available that will
> attempt
> to look through this change and find the appropriate prior commit.  YMMV.
>
>
> Thanks for your collective support and assistance in preparing for this
> change.
>
> Kate Stone k8st...@apple.com
>  Xcode Low Level Tools
>
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Kate Stone  wrote:
>
> As has been discussed over the past few weeks the reformatting of the LLDB
> code base will take place shortly, followed by validation before committing
> these changes.  Please suspend all commit activity.  Any intervening
> commits *will be reverted* until the all-clear is given.
>
> Kate Stone k8st...@apple.com
>  Xcode Low Level Tools
>
>
> ___
> 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] LLDB REFORMATTING IN PROGRESS

[Ed Maste via lldb-dev]

On 6 September 2016 at 17:17, Kate Stone via lldb-dev
 wrote:
> The storm of commit messages might be a subtle clue, but here it is
> officially: the reformatting is complete and I’ve verified that no tests
> regressed locally in our macOS suite.  Please begin any validation process
> you’ve signed up for on another platform, and if changes are necessary go
> ahead and land them individually.

FreeBSD currently fails to build due to header reordering in
source/Host/freebsd/Host.cpp which I'll sort out shortly.

I'd like to request that we avoid any functional changes other than
those restoring builds to green, until we get the "all clear" from
everyone who's signed up to validate other platforms.

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

[lldb-dev] All clear on FreeBSD after reformatting

[Ed Maste via lldb-dev]

On 6 September 2016 at 17:26, Ed Maste  wrote:
>
> FreeBSD currently fails to build due to header reordering in
> source/Host/freebsd/Host.cpp which I'll sort out shortly.
>
> I'd like to request that we avoid any functional changes other than
> those restoring builds to green, until we get the "all clear" from
> everyone who's signed up to validate other platforms.

The FreeBSD build is fixed in r280755, and test results are consistent
with those from before the reformatting.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB REFORMATTING IN PROGRESS

[Zachary Turner via lldb-dev]

Everything compiles on Windows now but all the tests are failing with
ERROR.  I'm looking into this now.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:26 PM Ed Maste via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On 6 September 2016 at 17:17, Kate Stone via lldb-dev
>  wrote:
> > The storm of commit messages might be a subtle clue, but here it is
> > officially: the reformatting is complete and I’ve verified that no tests
> > regressed locally in our macOS suite.  Please begin any validation
> process
> > you’ve signed up for on another platform, and if changes are necessary go
> > ahead and land them individually.
>
> FreeBSD currently fails to build due to header reordering in
> source/Host/freebsd/Host.cpp which I'll sort out shortly.
>
> I'd like to request that we avoid any functional changes other than
> those restoring builds to green, until we get the "all clear" from
> everyone who's signed up to validate other platforms.
>
> -Ed
> ___
> 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] LLDB REFORMATTING IN PROGRESS

[Zachary Turner via lldb-dev]

I think Windows is good.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:10 PM Zachary Turner  wrote:

> Everything compiles on Windows now but all the tests are failing with
> ERROR.  I'm looking into this now.
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:26 PM Ed Maste via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> On 6 September 2016 at 17:17, Kate Stone via lldb-dev
>  wrote:
> > The storm of commit messages might be a subtle clue, but here it is
> > officially: the reformatting is complete and I’ve verified that no tests
> > regressed locally in our macOS suite.  Please begin any validation
> process
> > you’ve signed up for on another platform, and if changes are necessary go
> > ahead and land them individually.
>
> FreeBSD currently fails to build due to header reordering in
> source/Host/freebsd/Host.cpp which I'll sort out shortly.
>
> I'd like to request that we avoid any functional changes other than
> those restoring builds to green, until we get the "all clear" from
> everyone who's signed up to validate other platforms.
>
> -Ed
> ___
> 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] Running Clang-format automatically in CMake

[Eugene Zelenko via lldb-dev]

Hi!

Since LLDB code is freshly formatted, it may make sense to run
Clang-format automatically via CMake. If not as part of regular build,
but may be subtarget of install or check targets as it done in Polly.

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

Re: [lldb-dev] Running Clang-format automatically in CMake

[Zachary Turner via lldb-dev]

What would be the gain of such a thing?  It would be extremely slow to run
clang-format every single time you ran CMake, and also having a run of
CMake generate changes to your source tree seems like using the wrong tool
for the job.  I think we should follow whatever LLVM does, which in this
case is that it is each developers' responsibility to run clang-format
before submitting.

There may be a case to be made for presubmit hooks that prevent you from
checking in code which doesn't pass clang-format, but that discussion
should happen on llvm-dev@.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:04 PM Eugene Zelenko via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Since LLDB code is freshly formatted, it may make sense to run
> Clang-format automatically via CMake. If not as part of regular build,
> but may be subtarget of install or check targets as it done in Polly.
>
> Eugene.
> ___
> 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