Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

[Pavel Labath via lldb-dev]

Thank you for the update Jonas. I haven't looked at the patch in detail, 
but (for better or worse) it seems more-or-less like what I would expect 
at a first glance.


One of the things that occurred to me while looking at this is that it 
would be great to be able to test this code in greater isolation instead 
of just the full "run lldb.exe" test. (I've already said this on the 
file provider patch, but I think that is doubly true here.) There 
shouldn't be anything (except the prolific use of the string SB) tying 
this code to the SB api, and so we should be able to use it to 
record/replay a dummy api for testing purposes.


That would make it easier to test some of the trickier corner cases. For 
instance you could use placement new to make sure you get two objects at 
the same address instead of hoping that this will eventually happen 
during the full lldb run. It would also enable you to make incremental 
patches while you work out the remaining issues instead of having to 
have a fully working system from the get-go.


I think the only big change that you would need to make for this to work 
is to move the core of this code out of the API folder (maybe all the 
way down to Utility?), as in the way the build is set up now, it won't 
get exported in a way that can be used by anyone else.


I think the patch tool you've made strikes a good compromise between 
ease of use and ease of developing it. I expect it will be particularly 
useful during the initial stages, when you need to annotate a large 
number of functions in batches.



On 17/01/2019 03:29, Jonas Devlieghere wrote:
I've put up a (WIP) patch for the tool (https://reviews.llvm.org/D56822) 
in case anybody is curious about that.


On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:41 PM Jonas Devlieghere > wrote:


I've updated the patch with a new version of the prototype:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56322

It uses Pavel's suggestion to use the function address as a runtime
ID. All the deserialization code is generated using templates, with
automatic mapping on indices during serialization and deserialization.

I (again) manually added the macros for the same set of functions I
had in the original prototype. Unsurprisingly this is very
error-prone. It's easy to forget to add the right macros for the
registry, the function, and the return type. Some of these things
can be detected at compile time, other only blow up at run-time. I
strongly believe that a tool to add the macros is the way forward.
It would be more of a developer tool rather than something that
hooks up in the build process.

Note that it's still a prototype, there are outstanding issues like
void pointers, callbacks and other types of argument that require
some kind of additional information to serialize. I also didn't get
around yet to the lifetime issue yet that was discussed on IRC last
week.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Jonas

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 8:58 AM Jonas Devlieghere
mailto:jo...@devlieghere.com>> wrote:



On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 8:42 AM Pavel Labath mailto:pa...@labath.sk>> wrote:

On 09/01/2019 17:15, Jonas Devlieghere wrote:
 >
 >
 > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:05 AM Pavel Labath
mailto:pa...@labath.sk>
 > >> wrote:
 >
 >     On 08/01/2019 21:57, Jonas Devlieghere wrote:
 >      > Before I got around to coding this up I realized
you can't take the
 >      > address of constructors in C++, so the function
address won't
 >     work as an
 >      > identifier.
 >      >
 >
 >     You gave up way too easily. :P
 >
 >
 > I counted on you having something in mind, it sounded too
obvious for
 > you to have missed.  ;-)
 >
 >     I realized that constructors are going to be tricky,
but I didn't want
 >     to dive into those details until I knew if you liked
the general idea.
 >     The most important thing to realize here is that for
the identifier
 >     thingy to work, you don't actually need to use the
address of that
 >     method/constructor as the identifier. It is
sufficient to have
 >     something
 >     that can be deterministically computed from the
function. Then you can
 >     use the address of *that* as the identifier.
 >
 >
 > I was thinking about that yesterday. I still feel like it
would be
 > better to have this mapping all done at compile time. I
was considering
 > som

[lldb-dev] [Bug 40370] Merge r351504 to the 8.0 branch

[via lldb-dev]

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40370

Eli Friedman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Product|lld |lldb
   Assignee|unassignedb...@nondot.org   |lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
  Component|ELF |All Bugs
 CC||efrie...@codeaurora.org

-- 
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