jasonmolenda added a comment.
LGTM. If we added more knowledge specifically about kext bundle layouts, we
could restrict which files we test to see if they are valid binaries - but we'd
need to parse the Info.plist at the top (to get the CFBundleExecutable name,
and look for variations on that
lhames added a comment.
LGTM.
I haven't looked at process memory management. How hard would your FIXME be to
implement?
- Lang.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47551
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bi
vsk updated this revision to Diff 149198.
vsk added a reviewer: lhames.
vsk added a comment.
- Don't insert extra padding bytes when `alignment` = 1.
- + Lang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47551
Files:
lit/Expr/Inputs/ir-memory-map-basic.test
lit/Expr/Inputs/ir-memory-map-overlap1.test
lit/Ex
Author: vedantk
Date: Wed May 30 12:46:47 2018
New Revision: 333585
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=333585&view=rev
Log:
[lldb-test] ir-memory-map: Avoid accessing a bad iterator
Do not access Probe.start() when Probe is at the end of the interval
map.
Modified:
lldb/trunk/tools
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL333583: [lldb-test] Add a testing harness for the JIT's
IRMemoryMap (authored by vedantk, committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D4750
Author: vedantk
Date: Wed May 30 12:39:10 2018
New Revision: 333583
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=333583&view=rev
Log:
[lldb-test] Add a testing harness for the JIT's IRMemoryMap
This teaches lldb-test how to launch a process, set up an IRMemoryMap,
and issue memory allocations in
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: labath, zturner, jingham, aprantl.
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
This prevents Malloc from allocating the same chunk of memory twice, as
a byproduct of an alignment adjustment which gave the client access to
unallocated memory.
Prior to t
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thank you for making the changes. This looks fine to me. The more testing, the
better.
Comment at: tools/lldb-test/lldb-test.cpp:532
+ // Print the result of the allocation
vsk updated this revision to Diff 149173.
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added a comment.
- Really fix the allocation overlap test. The previous version of this patch
would not detect overlaps in which the end of the new allocation is contained
within an existing allocation.
> The
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: tools/lldb-test/lldb-test.cpp:503
+ uint8_t Alignment;
+ int Matches = sscanf(Line.data(), "malloc %lu %hhu", &Size, &Alignment);
+ if (Matches != 2)
labath wrote:
> is `Line` null-terminated here? Also a size_t arg shoul
vsk updated this revision to Diff 149159.
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added a comment.
- Use %zu, and improve detection of overlapping allocations.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47508
Files:
lit/Expr/TestIRMemoryMap.test
source/Target/Process.cpp
tools/lldb-test/lldb-test.cpp
JDevlieghere abandoned this revision.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
Alright, let's abandon this and replace the existing uses with llvm iterators.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47535
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@list
JDevlieghere updated this revision to Diff 149143.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
Don't use `EnumerateDirectory`
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47539
Files:
source/Plugins/Platform/MacOSX/PlatformDarwinKernel.cpp
source/Plugins/Platform/MacOSX/PlatformDarwinKernel.h
Index: source/Plugins/Platfo
zturner added a subscriber: JDevlieghere.
zturner added a comment.
+1 I’d like to get rid of all EnumerateXXX with callback functions and
replace with iterator based equivalents. Given that in this case the
iterator version already exists, I definitely think we should try to use it
instead
Repos
JDevlieghere added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47535#1116430, @labath wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47535#1116392, @JDevlieghere wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47535#1116364, @labath wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, I wonder if we shouldn't just deprecate this function
>
+1 I’d like to get rid of all EnumerateXXX with callback functions and
replace with iterator based equivalents. Given that in this case the
iterator version already exists, I definitely think we should try to use it
instead
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:30 AM Pavel Labath via Phabricator <
revi...@revi
labath added a reviewer: zturner.
labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47535#1116392, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47535#1116364, @labath wrote:
>
> > Actually, I wonder if we shouldn't just deprecate this function altogether.
> > What was your motivation f
JDevlieghere added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47535#1116364, @labath wrote:
> Actually, I wonder if we shouldn't just deprecate this function altogether.
> What was your motivation for this patch? It seems we already have
> `llvm::fs::(recursive_)directory_iterator` for this purpos
JDevlieghere created this revision.
JDevlieghere added reviewers: jasonmolenda, labath.
When loading kexts in `PlatformDarwinKernel`, we use the BundleID as the
filename to to create shared modules. In `GetSharedModule` we call
`ExamineKextForMatchingUUID` for any BundleID it finds that is a mat
labath added a comment.
Actually, I wonder if we shouldn't just deprecate this function altogether.
What was your motivation for this patch? It seems we already have
`llvm::fs::(recursive_)directory_iterator` for this purpose. It would be great
if we could use that for all new code. Have you lo
JDevlieghere added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47535#1116274, @labath wrote:
> Could we just get rid of the baton version?
It's the only way the function is used currently. How about just phasing it out
when we touch the relevant code?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.
labath added a comment.
Could we just get rid of the baton version?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47535
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
JDevlieghere created this revision.
JDevlieghere added reviewers: clayborg, labath.
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Support both lambda's and function pointers as arguments to EnumerateDirectory.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47535
Files:
include/lldb/Utility/FileS
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL333540: [FileSpec] Re-implmenet removeLastPathComponent
(authored by JDevlieghere, committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47495?vs=14
Author: jdevlieghere
Date: Wed May 30 06:03:16 2018
New Revision: 333540
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=333540&view=rev
Log:
[FileSpec] Re-implmenet removeLastPathComponent
When reading DBGSourcePathRemapping from a dSYM, we remove the last two
path components to make the source loo
labath accepted this revision.
labath added inline comments.
Comment at: unittests/Utility/FileSpecTest.cpp:342
+ EXPECT_FALSE(fs_posix_relative.RemoveLastPathComponent());
+ EXPECT_STREQ("foo", fs_posix_relative.GetCString());
+
JDevlieghere wrote:
> labath wr
JDevlieghere added inline comments.
Comment at: unittests/Utility/FileSpecTest.cpp:342
+ EXPECT_FALSE(fs_posix_relative.RemoveLastPathComponent());
+ EXPECT_STREQ("foo", fs_posix_relative.GetCString());
+
labath wrote:
> Is this the behavior you want here? I wa
labath added inline comments.
Comment at: unittests/Utility/FileSpecTest.cpp:342
+ EXPECT_FALSE(fs_posix_relative.RemoveLastPathComponent());
+ EXPECT_STREQ("foo", fs_posix_relative.GetCString());
+
Is this the behavior you want here? I was thinking we could fo
JDevlieghere updated this revision to Diff 149083.
JDevlieghere marked an inline comment as done.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
- Replace custom logic with LLVM's path logic.
- Add tests.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47495
Files:
include/lldb/Utility/FileSpec.h
source/Utility/FileSpec.cpp
un
I've added a @skipUnlessDarwin to the new test. Right now we don't
have the ability to build or run ObjC tests on other platforms.
On Tue, 29 May 2018 at 23:57, Davide Italiano via lldb-commits
wrote:
>
> I would like to apologize, I forgot to `git add `the Makefile and this
> broke the bots. It s
Author: labath
Date: Wed May 30 03:04:32 2018
New Revision: 333526
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=333526&view=rev
Log:
@skipUnlessDarwin TestOrderedSet
Modified:
lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lang/objc/orderedset/TestOrderedSet.py
Modified:
lldb/trunk/packages/Pyt
labath added a comment.
The idea that came to me while looking at this is testing this gdb-client
style. This would allow you to mock the server responses to allocation and e.g.
test handling of allocation failures. However, the problem is these tests sit
on top of SBAPI and there seems to be
jankratochvil marked an inline comment as done.
jankratochvil added a comment.
FYI I also checked in a regression (just looking at the source code)
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL333517.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46810
___
lldb-c
Author: jankratochvil
Date: Wed May 30 01:54:46 2018
New Revision: 333517
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=333517&view=rev
Log:
Fix return value of DWARFUnit::ExtractDIEsIfNeeded()
This is a leftover regression from: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46810
Modified:
lldb/trunk/source/Plu
labath added a comment.
I was also thinking whether this behavior needs to be conditional. If nothing
depends on this, then I'm all for changing the condition. However, my question
is whether "." is the only path we should treat this way. I'm thinking it would
be more consistent to give the roo
35 matches
Mail list logo
