[lldb-dev] [Bug 44225] LLDB build error in llvmorg-9.0.1-rc1 with Python 2

[via lldb-dev]

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44225

lab...@google.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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

--- Comment #1 from lab...@google.com ---
This was fixed by d5904988, and it looks like that commit was already
cherry-picked into the release branch (as 9b2d207cf) -- it just didn't make it
in time for rc1. The next release candidate should include it.

Closing this now, but if you do see this happening after rc2, then please do
reopen this bug.

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

[lldb-dev] [10.0.0 Release] Release schedule

[Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev]

Hello everyone,

I know 9.0.1 is still in full swing, and 10.0.0 isn't due for some
time, but I'd like to get the schedule settled well before we start.

Below is my proposed timeline. It's essentially the same as last time.

- 15 January 2020: Create the release branch, Release Candidate 1
ships soon after

- 5 February 2020: Release Candidate 2

- 26 February 2020: Final (this usually slips a little, but let's try not to).

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Hans
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] Possible bug in DataExtractor::GetMaxU64Bitfield

[Shafik Yaghmour via lldb-dev]

Ted,

This was a good catch! I landed a patch for this a little while ago:

https://reviews.llvm.org/D70992 

Thank you

> On Nov 25, 2019, at 9:49 AM, Ted Woodward via lldb-dev 
>  wrote:
> 
> Here’s an interesting bug, in source/Utility/DataExtractor.cpp, 
> DataExtractor::GetMaxU64Bitfield:
>  
> uint64_t bitfield_mask = ((1ul << bitfield_bit_size) - 1);
>  
> In Visual Studio 2017, ul is a 32 bit type. When I run it with a size of 36 
> (from large_packed in test/API/lang/c/bitfields/main.c), I get a mask of 0x0f.
> I think that should be 1ull, or (uint64_t) 1, not 1ul.
>  
> MSDN problem talking about the size of ul:
> https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/content/problem/226112/vs2017-1ul-32-is-evaluated-to-0-in-watch-window-du.html
>  
> 
>  
> Thoughts?
> ___
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org 
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev 
> 
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev