[lldb-dev] [Bug 50551] New: LLDB fails to lookup symbols of static class members on Windows
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50551
Bug ID: 50551
Summary: LLDB fails to lookup symbols of static class members
on Windows
Product: lldb
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: Windows NT
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: All Bugs
Assignee: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
Reporter: teempe...@gmail.com
CC: jdevliegh...@apple.com, llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org
Some tests are currently failing because LLDB on Windows can't look up static
class members:
For example:
```
FAIL: test_access_from_member_function_dwarf (TestCPPStaticMembers.TestCase)
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"C:\buildbot\lldb-x64-windows-ninja\llvm-project\lldb\test\API\lang\cpp\static_members\TestCPPStaticMembers.py",
line 31, in test_access_from_member_function
self.expect_expr("s_b", result_type="long", result_value="2")
File
"C:\buildbot\lldb-x64-windows-ninja\llvm-project\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\lldbtest.py",
line 2593, in expect_expr
value_check.check_value(self, eval_result, str(eval_result))
File
"C:\buildbot\lldb-x64-windows-ninja\llvm-project\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\lldbtest.py",
line 284, in check_value
test_base.assertSuccess(val.GetError())
File
"C:\buildbot\lldb-x64-windows-ninja\llvm-project\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\lldbtest.py",
line 2655, in assertSuccess
"'{}' is not success".format(error)))
AssertionError: 'expression failed to parse:
error: Couldn't lookup symbols:
long A::s_b
' is not success
```
--
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
Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] 12.0.1-rc1 release has been tagged
On 5/28/21 1:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote: On Wed, 2021-05-26 at 00:15 -0700, Tom Stellard via Release-testers wrote: Hi, I've tagged the 12.0.1-rc1 release. Testers may upload binaries and report results. I've started testing, hit two bugs I've already reported for 12.0.0 RCs and figured out I'm wasting my time. It seems that LLVM reached the point where releases are pushed through just for the sake of releases and QA doesn't exist. Which bugs are these? -Tom ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
[lldb-dev] Mailing List Status Update
Hi, We recently[1] ran into some issues with the mailing lists that caused us to disable automatic approval of subscriptions. Over the past few months, the LLVM Foundation Board of Directors have been investigating solutions to this issue and are recommending that the project move its discussion forum from mailman to Discourse[2]. The proposed migration plan is to move the discussion lists (e.g *-dev, *-users lists) to Discourse as soon as possible. The commit email lists (*-commits lists) will remain on mailman until a not-yet-determined date in the future, after which they will be replaced by something else. Some commit lists alternatives include Discourse and GitHub commit comments (but there may be others). Here are the reasons why the LLVM Foundation Board of Directors is recommending this change: - The LLVM project discussion lists cannot be adequately maintained by our current volunteer infrastructure staff and without changes we run the risk of a major outage. - We are able to make this change without significant impact to user's or developer's daily workflows because Discourse supports email subscriptions and posting (NOTE: if you are concerned that your workflow may be impacted by this change, please contact the Infrastructure Working Group[3], so they can help test your workflow with Discourse.) - Discourse gives us additional features that will benefit the community: - Easy to signup and subscribe to categories - Better moderation tools. - Web-based user interface. - Ability to send announcements to multiple categories to avoid having to cross-post community wide announcements. - A subset of the community (MLIR) have been experimenting with Discourse for over a year and are able to provide feedback about this experience to the Board of Directors. We did also consider one alternative, which was migrating our lists to a mailman hosting service. However, we concluded that with all the work it would take to migrate our lists to another service, it would be better if we moved to a service (like Discourse) that provided more features than what we have now. We understand that moving to Discourse is a change for the community and that people may be worried about this having a negative impact on their participation in the project. As mentioned above, we believe that this change can be done without significant impact to anyone’s workflows. If you disagree, please contact the Infrastructure Working Group, to document the impact to your workflow, so we can work together to find a solution for your issue. If you have any other questions or comments you can raise them on this thread and please keep criticisms constructive and on topic. LLVM Foundation Board of Directors [1] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-March/149027.html [2] https://www.discourse.org/ [3] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-iwg ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
