alexshap added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARF.cpp:1644-1656
+// A *.dwo file itself can have DW_AT_GNU_dwo_name (but no
+// DW_AT_comp_dir) (clang 4.0 generates such DWOs). In this case
+// there is
clayborg added inline comments.
Comment at: tools/lldb-mi/MICmdCmdVar.cpp:522
+ continue;
+
+// Handle composite types (i.e. struct or arrays)
Or even cleaner:
```
bool CMICmdCmdVarUpdate::ExamineSBValueForChange(lldb::SBValue &vrwValue,
clayborg requested changes to this revision.
clayborg added inline comments.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Comment at: tools/lldb-mi/MICmdCmdVar.cpp:518-522
+// skip pointers and references to avoid infinite loop
+if (member.GetType().GetTypeFlags() &
+
ted updated this revision to Diff 113317.
ted marked an inline comment as done.
ted added a comment.
Updated with Greg's suggestion.
Removed second call to GetValueDidChange() because it's handled at the top of
the recursive call. This way we get 1 extra call to ExamineSBValueForChange()
on a c
clayborg added inline comments.
Comment at: tools/lldb-mi/MICmdCmdVar.cpp:525-526
+// Don't go down into pointers or references, to avoid a loop
+lldb::SBType valueType = member.GetType();
+if (!valueType.IsPointerType() && !valueType.IsReferenceType())
+ if (Exa
ted updated this revision to Diff 113310.
ted added reviewers: clayborg, abidh.
ted removed a subscriber: abidh.
ted added a comment.
Added check for reference types, as Greg suggested.
Simplified change.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37154
Files:
tools/lldb-mi/MICmdCmdVar.cpp
Index: tools/lld
clayborg added a comment.
Can you explain the issue with an example?
Comment at: source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARF.cpp:1644-1656
+// A *.dwo file itself can have DW_AT_GNU_dwo_name (but no
+// DW_AT_comp_dir) (clang 4.0 generates such DWOs)
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL312151: Now a ppc64le binary is correctly detected:
(authored by eugene).
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36804
Files:
lldb/trunk/include/lldb/Core/ArchSpec.h
lldb/trunk/source/Core/
Author: eugene
Date: Wed Aug 30 11:36:48 2017
New Revision: 312151
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=312151&view=rev
Log:
Now a ppc64le binary is correctly detected:
(lldb) target create "tst"
Current executable set to 'tst' (powerpc64le).
(lldb) disassemble -n main
tst`main:
tst[0x7b0
alexshap created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: JDevlieghere.
A *.dwo file itself can have DW_AT_GNU_dwo_name (but no DW_AT_comp_dir)
(clang 4.0 generates such DWOs). In this case there is no need to try to get a
new module,
and, more over, if we try (below) the method ModuleList::Ge
gut added a comment.
ok... now it looks fine!
Thanks @labath
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36804
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
gut updated this revision to Diff 113237.
gut added a comment.
Remove unused MachO detection for ppc64le
(now sending all my changes on this update)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36804
Files:
include/lldb/Core/ArchSpec.h
source/Core/ArchSpec.cpp
Index: source/Core/ArchSpec.cpp
==
gut added a comment.
Ops, wrong diff. Sorry (first time using archanist...)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36804
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
gut updated this revision to Diff 113236.
gut added a comment.
Remove unused MachO detection for ppc64le
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36804
Files:
source/Core/ArchSpec.cpp
Index: source/Core/ArchSpec.cpp
===
--- source/Core/ArchSp
gut added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36804#856362, @labath wrote:
> IIUC, the conclusion was that we don't need the mach-o entry. Could you
> submit a version of the patch without it. I can't commit this right now, but
> @eugene should be able to do that for you.
Yes, I can. Sorr
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
looks good. plus, it seems to be a no-op, as the following case block
immediately breaks.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36977
___
labath added a subscriber: eugene.
labath added a comment.
IIUC, the conclusion was that we don't need the mach-o entry. Could you submit
a version of the patch without it. I can't commit this right now, but @eugene
should be able to do that for you.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36804
abidh added a comment.
This check used to be there above the loop and was removed when you reported
that changes in pointers are not being tracked in
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2017-May/012428.html
I think putting it on individual child is probably good enough compromise.
https:
18 matches
Mail list logo
