[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r345569 - Utility: fix cross-compilation from Linux to Windows

Author: compnerd Date: Mon Oct 29 23:29:28 2018 New Revision: 345569 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=345569&view=rev Log: Utility: fix cross-compilation from Linux to Windows Only attempt to link against Backtrace if it is found. Without this, trying to cross-compile to Windows woul

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D52953: [lldb-mi] Implement -gdb-set breakpoint pending on/off

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL345563: [lldb-mi] Implement -gdb-set breakpoint pending on/off (authored by malaperle, committed by ). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52953?vs=171451&id=171629#toc Repository: rL

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D52953: [lldb-mi] Implement -gdb-set breakpoint pending on/off

malaperle added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52953#1278523, @apolyakov wrote: > LGTM. Thanks a lot! https://reviews.llvm.org/D52953 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53662: Give the SymbolFile plugin enough information to efficiently do exact match lookups

jingham added a comment. Yes. You can't put them in the same CompileUnit because declaring variables of the type would be ambiguous (though all other references would be okay since ObjC method dispatch looks totally different from C++ method calling). But there's nothing keeping the same modu

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53662: Give the SymbolFile plugin enough information to efficiently do exact match lookups

zturner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53662#1279777, @jingham wrote: > Yes, that usage is exactly the sort of use I was talking about. When we get > an ObjC object and want to find its dynamic type, we read the type name by > following the object's ISA pointer to the Class obje

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53662: Give the SymbolFile plugin enough information to efficiently do exact match lookups

jingham added a comment. Yes, that usage is exactly the sort of use I was talking about. When we get an ObjC object and want to find its dynamic type, we read the type name by following the object's ISA pointer to the Class object. Then we go to look up the type from that name. We know we wa

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53662: Give the SymbolFile plugin enough information to efficiently do exact match lookups

zturner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53662#1279761, @jingham wrote: > That depends on the definition of "fully qualified name". If you can ensure > that it means "name of C++ class" - or other ODR enforcing type system, then > you could make that assumption. In C you are free

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53662: Give the SymbolFile plugin enough information to efficiently do exact match lookups

jingham added a comment. You could also get multiple matches if you had classes in anonymous namespaces with the same name in multiple compile units. https://reviews.llvm.org/D53662 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://l

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53662: Give the SymbolFile plugin enough information to efficiently do exact match lookups

jingham added a comment. That depends on the definition of "fully qualified name". If you can ensure that it means "name of C++ class" - or other ODR enforcing type system, then you could make that assumption. In C you are free to redefine types on a per-function basis if you so desire; and s

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53662: Give the SymbolFile plugin enough information to efficiently do exact match lookups

zturner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53662#1279738, @jingham wrote: > Exact matches aren't a C++ specific thing. An exact match is useful for > mixed C/C++ since you might want to say Foo and not Bar::Foo. IIRC a couple > of the places where exact was dialed up explicitly in

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53662: Give the SymbolFile plugin enough information to efficiently do exact match lookups

jingham added a comment. Exact matches aren't a C++ specific thing. An exact match is useful for mixed C/C++ since you might want to say Foo and not Bar::Foo. IIRC a couple of the places where exact was dialed up explicitly in FindTypes were for C types. But since C and ObjC allow multiple

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53662: Give the SymbolFile plugin enough information to efficiently do exact match lookups

zturner added a comment. So I started looking into this, and things get tricky. If we're doing a lookup by fully qualified name, I would expect there to never be more than one match, but LLDB doesn't seem to hold this same assumption. For example, in `ItaniumABILanguageRuntime::GetTypeInfoFro

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53435: [x86] Fix issues with a realigned stack in MSVC compiled applications

jasonmolenda added a comment. Thanks Aleksandr, this all looks good. I'd like to see a definition of AFA (and we can say "CFA is DWARF's Canonical Frame Address" in the same spot) maybe in UnwindPlan.h, non-Windows people (ok, me) will not know what that is referring to. I was a little worrie

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53845: [FileSystem] Remove Exists() from FileSpec

JDevlieghere created this revision. JDevlieghere added reviewers: zturner, labath, davide. JDevlieghere added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: emaste. This patch removes the `Exists` method from FileSpec and updates its uses with calls to the FileSystem. Repository: rLLDB LLDB htt

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53834: [FileSystem] Remove ResolveExecutableLocation() from FileSpec

JDevlieghere created this revision. JDevlieghere added reviewers: zturner, labath, davide. JDevlieghere added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: emaste. This patch removes the `ResolveExecutableLocation` method from FileSpec and updates its uses with calls to the FileSystem. Repository

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53831: [FileSystem] Remove GetPermissions() and Readable() from FileSpec

JDevlieghere created this revision. JDevlieghere added reviewers: zturner, labath, davide. JDevlieghere added a project: LLDB. Herald added subscribers: abidh, emaste. This patch removes the `GetPermissions` and `GetReadable` methods from FileSpec and updates its uses with calls to the FileSystem

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53435: [x86] Fix issues with a realigned stack in MSVC compiled applications

jasonmolenda added a comment. Thanks for the ping aleksandr, I have somehow managed to set up my mail rules so I didn't see this. I'll try to look it over later today. Yes, the x86 instruction profiler has definitely overgrown over the years - the ARM64 instruction profiler is probably a bett

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53761: [Target] Do not skip a stop on a breakpoint if a plan was completed

jingham accepted this revision. jingham added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM https://reviews.llvm.org/D53761 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/l

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53788: [FileSystem] Remove GetByteSize() from FileSpec

zturner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53788#1279096, @shafik wrote: > Are we refactoring in the right place? Why not just refactor > `FileSpec::GetByteSize()` why is `FileSpec` the wrong place? There was another review thread where we discussed this just the other day. Basica

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53788: [FileSystem] Remove GetByteSize() from FileSpec

shafik added a comment. Are we refactoring in the right place? Why not just refactor `FileSpec::GetByteSize()` why is `FileSpec` the wrong place? Comment at: source/Plugins/ObjectFile/ELF/ObjectFileELF.cpp:718 + (FileSystem::Instance().GetByteSize(file) - file

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53822: [NativePDB] Add tests for dumping global variables of class type

zturner created this revision. zturner added reviewers: lemo, aleksandr.urakov. Previous patches added support for dumpign global variables of builtin types, so this patch does the same for class types. For the most part, everything just worked, there was only one minor bug fix needed, which wa

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53532: [FileSystem] Extend file system and have it use the VFS.

JDevlieghere updated this revision to Diff 171529. JDevlieghere added a comment. Address Pavel's feedback: - Change to `Initialize` method which can only be called once. - Fix accidental change in comment. https://reviews.llvm.org/D53532 Files: include/lldb/Host/FileSystem.h include/lldb/U

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53788: [FileSystem] Remove GetByteSize() from FileSpec

JDevlieghere added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53788#1278036, @zturner wrote: > I always wondered if we actually even need methods like this in `FileSystem` > given that they already exist in `llvm::sys::fs`. Is it possible to just > call the llvm methods directly, or is it still h

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53813: [LLDB] - Add support for DW_FORM_addrx[1-4]? forms.

grimar updated this revision to Diff 171517. grimar retitled this revision from "[LLDB] - Add support for DW_FORM_rnglistx, DW_FORM_addrx[1-4]? forms." to "[LLDB] - Add support for DW_FORM_addrx[1-4]? forms.". grimar edited the summary of this revision. grimar added a comment. - Removed DW_FORM_

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D52618: [Windows] A basic implementation of memory allocations in a debuggee process

zturner added a comment. I think we should try as hard as possible to have just one way of writing these tests. So if we know there are going to be two different use cases, one where we have mutually exclusive variants (e.g. run a process on OSX, Linux, Windows), and platform agnostic variants

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53435: [x86] Fix issues with a realigned stack in MSVC compiled applications

aleksandr.urakov added a comment. Ping! Can you look at this, please? Repository: rLLDB LLDB https://reviews.llvm.org/D53435 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53761: [Target] Do not skip a stop on a breakpoint if a plan was completed

aleksandr.urakov updated this revision to Diff 171496. aleksandr.urakov added a comment. Thanks! I've updated the diff according to comments. https://reviews.llvm.org/D53761 Files: include/lldb/API/SBModule.h packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/expr-entry-bp/Makefile packages/

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D52618: [Windows] A basic implementation of memory allocations in a debuggee process

On 29/10/18 15:06, Zachary Turner wrote: > Even in this exact case we have the multiple variants situation. If we > use the substitutions method we would reduce the test coverage by half, > which doesn’t seem like a good idea. Which variants do you have in mind? This patch creates two tests: one w

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53813: [LLDB] - Add support for DW_FORM_rnglistx, DW_FORM_addrx[1-4]? forms.

grimar planned changes to this revision. grimar added a comment. Planning changes. Going to remove the DW_FORM_rnglistx support from this patch, found it is incomplete and has other issues. https://reviews.llvm.org/D53813 ___ lldb-commits mailing l

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D52618: [Windows] A basic implementation of memory allocations in a debuggee process

Even in this exact case we have the multiple variants situation. If we use the substitutions method we would reduce the test coverage by half, which doesn’t seem like a good idea. Similarly, in the target variables tests i added to the native pdb plugin Jim was asking if I could also enable that e

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D52618: [Windows] A basic implementation of memory allocations in a debuggee process

On 26/10/18 18:34, Zachary Turner wrote: > I was thinking about this some more and I’m not sure simple > substitutions will suffice. > > We can provide substitutions to abstract away the command line, but that > doesn’t doesn’t really address the issue that we still need to have a > way to then ru

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53759: [PDB] Support PDB-backed expressions evaluation

aleksandr.urakov updated this revision to Diff 171489. aleksandr.urakov marked 2 inline comments as done. aleksandr.urakov added a comment. Update the diff according to comments. https://reviews.llvm.org/D53759 Files: lit/SymbolFile/PDB/Inputs/ExpressionsTest.cpp lit/SymbolFile/PDB/Inputs/E

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53759: [PDB] Support PDB-backed expressions evaluation

aleksandr.urakov marked 2 inline comments as done. aleksandr.urakov added inline comments. Comment at: source/Plugins/ObjectFile/PECOFF/ObjectFilePECOFF.cpp:819 if (!section_list) m_entry_point_address.SetOffset(offset); else Hui wrote: > This still ne

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r345498 - [LLDB] - Fix outdated comment. NFC.

Author: grimar Date: Mon Oct 29 05:33:19 2018 New Revision: 345498 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=345498&view=rev Log: [LLDB] - Fix outdated comment. NFC. Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDebugRanges.cpp Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DW

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53813: [LLDB] - Add support for DW_FORM_rnglistx, DW_FORM_addrx[1-4]? forms.

grimar created this revision. grimar added reviewers: LLDB, clayborg. Herald added a subscriber: JDevlieghere. This adds the support for DW_FORM_rnglistx, DW_FORM_addrx, DW_FORM_addrx1, DW_FORM_addrx2, DW_FORM_addrx3, DW_FORM_addrx4 forms. https://reviews.llvm.org/D53813 Files: lit/Breakpoin

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53677: Fix a bug PlatformDarwin::SDKSupportsModule

labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. lgtm. Sorry about the trouble. https://reviews.llvm.org/D53677 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D53094: [pecoff] Implement ObjectFilePECOFF::GetDependedModules()

labath added a comment. It sounds like at least part of this could be tested by adding the ability to dump dependent modules to `lldb-test object-file` (which I think would fit very nicely within the current information printed by that command). I seem to recall seeing code like that in some pa

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D52618: [Windows] A basic implementation of memory allocations in a debuggee process

aleksandr.urakov added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52618#1278442, @zturner wrote: > Is this still blocked on anything? It seems that it's not blocked on anything. The test, as you have mentioned in the earlier message, is already duplicating only `RUN: lldb-test` lines, there are

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D52953: [lldb-mi] Implement -gdb-set breakpoint pending on/off

apolyakov accepted this revision. apolyakov added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM. https://reviews.llvm.org/D52953 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listi